myPlanetGanja.com

Atheist Math Teachers Will Force Your Children to Learn “Irrational” Numbers

God is great. His reasoning is beyond that of yours or mine, and all of His creation is without flaw. Everything He makes, He makes for a reason, and nothing He makes is lacking in order or clarity.

But we are living in dark days. Heathen scientists have invented their own language to talk to each other and work to dismantle our Christian nation. They speak in hushed tones of numbers that go on forever, ever-twisting and changing like so many serpents. Atheist math teachers call these “irrational numbers,” a perfect name for a foolish sinful concept that denies God and reason. Atheists will tell you these numbers are “everywhere.” They are nowhere but in sinful heathen scientist’s minds.

Public schools are dens of sin where gothemo girls will try to rub their milk sacs all over your son. But advances from titful harlots are not the only dangers–even the teachers in public schools try to force sin on the young. The fabricated devil science of “evolution” has long been recognized by Christians as Satanic, but irrational numbers are equally as unholy, and children have been forced to learn them as “fact” for years.

The most popular “irrational number” is pi, or the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. Atheists claim that pi is equal to 3.14159265… and on and on and never stopping even though your good Christian mind knows that it must stop at some point. But is this really the correct value for pi? Let’s consult the Bible, looking at a passage where Huram constructs a circular pool for King Solomon:

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
–1 Kings 7:23

Any child with a calculator or simple math skills can tell you that 30 cubits divided by 10 cubits–circumference divided by diameter–is 3. Pi is equal to 3. And yet atheist sin scientists continue to believe their made-up lies about devil-worshipping forever-numbers!

PI IS EQUAL TO THREE YOU HOMOPROMOTING DEVIL EVOLUTION SCIENTISTS!!!

To support their “theories,” math sinners have even come up with a host of other completely made-up irrational numbers, such as e and i, which are not numbers, they are letters. Moreover, they are two of the letters in the word “devil,” which is certainly not a coincidence. Neither is it a coincidence that the two letters in “pi,” “p” and “i,” are the two most important letters in “penis.” Homo math teachers want to touch your child’s penis and they are barely even being subtle about it.

The only solution to all of this math and science sin is to pull your child out of evil government school and teach him at home. Public school will teach your baby evolution lies and it will also teach them that God is not rational. Pi equals three and there is no argument to be made against it. Home school your children, and write your Senator to demand we stop funding the Chinese lies that are taught in our classrooms.

Sally has some ooey-gooey cream Pi!





.

Prehaps rsin (aka bentech) is math sinner too.
Here we see rsin showing up in some hardcore mathematics, associating with pi and other irrationals

f(θ) = rsin(θ) - 2πcos(θ)

")


what do we do now good friend?

Earl wrote:Sally has some ooey-gooey cream Pi!

Sweet of you to say ♫♫♪ Earl ♫♪ ♫♪. Go Ahead and have a piece of my banana crème pi.
Anyway you slice it, pi never ends

Sally wrote:

Earl wrote:Sally has some ooey-gooey cream Pi!

Sweet of you to say ♫♫♪ Earl ♫♪ ♫♪. Go Ahead and have a piece of my banana crème pi.
Anyway you slice it, pi never ends

bananacreampi.JPG

I was hoping for a better picture but I would still stick my face in that Pi!

bentech wrote:")


what do we do now good friend?

Dunno friend, don’t use it. Every post there is one less here thus self-fulfilling the death rattle prophecies. Otherwise the logical conclusion is we are all there and MPG is jes a knock-off of cabana. Specially if everyone starts using it to hiding personal stuff if eventually the presures for the removal of the no search noindex metatags eventually win.

dunno

like you all aint already heard it before and not like it cutting into my work product here

just sharing with a bunch of people who know me, what they aint ever heard before

Well …. Yeah … right, nothing new from you, .. others response

The essay is a spoof, first found on one of the math forums. But of late it has shown up on Christian sites. Amusing ♪♫ no?

I’ll will show you more Earl honey, invite me in.

T
Take a bite of my apple. Please ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ Me

BlinDeye3 wrote:
the cabana forums are ALL hidden. every last one of them. they don't even have a system where people can register without being pre-approved to read. thats a very far cry from what is going on here.

The invitation only aspect appealed to me (no assholes allowed) until I wanted to be an asshole and realized that I couldn't without getting kicked out along with my sponsor. That's why I left and never went back. Now who's got the blueberry pi, I'm hungry.

BlinDeye3 wrote: irony. the man who is so afraid of us being google accessible is afraid of hiding personal information by using a private forum - i wonder if i could get that included in the new dictionary?

the cabana forums are ALL hidden. every last one of them. they don't even have a system where people can register without being pre-approved to read. thats a very far cry from what is going on here.

if you are not going to use it, no problem. really, see if i am going to give a shit but then ask yourself here - really who is causing the real divide? and who here is trying to unite them?

What are ya Republican? Redefine what I said, then attack it with a Straw Man argument (look it up). Sheeesh.

I never said I was “Afraid”, I’m joyful for the way the norobots.txt is. More then a subtle diff.
Furthermore, I am not “afraid of hiding personal information by using a private forum”.
Lately I have been doing just that, and with even more joy.
I have been posting personal info in the Compost Pile, which is a private members only forum. Clearly I am on board with that aspect.

if you are not going to use it, no problem. really, see if i am going to give a shit
Second time you attack me like this, after I let it go, seems to me ya give shit and it is a prob for ya. Sorry.

I don’t know anything about a divide but if there is then I’m likely responsible for it, I am trouble. Tell it true.
Divide? Are there behind the scenes conversations i am unaware of besides PMs?


Perhaps we should just date, see if sexual tension?

BlinDeye3 wrote:well we are obviously not kicking anyone out or excluding for just being an asshole -

And that's exactly why I'm still here.




Hey Sally, I'll bite your apple!

No neckin’ then. Shoot.
I wish I could jes say: you know my thoughts and I know yers, and move on (again) but you ignore or don’t even read what I say, so how can you know?



Anyways I just wanted to poke some fun at old rsin’s name. I guess he got me back good.

Touché

wasnt the intention at all...
i make mention to your faithful respect of my identity

youve done me this and i thank you


what now?!?!?!!?

what now!??!?!

Pi and other irrational numbers is a rational concept.

For instance consider We can Isolate X But it is not solvable for an exact number. it is an irrational number.
Furthermore using the geometry of a single unit square and Pythagorean Theorem (590 BC) We can construct a line segment, In terms of some basic unit of length, that has the exact length of √ 2 and measure it. (Or define a new unit length on its length)

Thus √ 2, an irrational number, is solved with a geometric construction.[/b] ♫♫♪♫Neato!

Using this method an approximation of √ 2 was accurately recorded to several decimal places nearly 4000 years ago!

Sally wrote:...
I’ll will show you more Earl honey, invite me in.
T
Take a bite of my apple. Please ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ Me

I'll take a nibble...
[image]http://i1.cpcache.com/product/385968443 ... &width=160[/image]

Boys don't know anything.

No no, not here, more private; First get me accepted into the Tank Club.

Pi proves 2 + 2 does not always equal 4 It can be 5.
Here let me write it down for you..
oops.. where is the piece of paper..

ok who washed my pants?

add search link here for easy access:

Sally wrote:Boys don't know anything.

No no, not here, more private; First get me accepted into the Tank Club.

Put It In.JPG

Is this another one of them poison apples in the hands of a beautiful woman lingering around an apple tree coming to a my dick is bigger than your dick fight in the Shark Tank cause you got nothing to get cut off tricks?

To partially quote you if I may? To late QUOTE "......completely made-up irrational numbers, such as e and i, which are not numbers, they are letters. Moreover, they are two of the letters in the word “devil,” which is certainly not a coincidence." UNQUOTE,

I like the way you think Mister. Scientific thought at work. You sir are funny.

Careful with overtouch on the comic undertone.

Some people like PRGRESSIVES got no funny bones.

Preacher said once .. in CHURCH I heard

The opposite of EVIL is LIVE

So don't listen to those rock bands etc.

I'm thinking per that logic the opposite of GOD is DOG,

Bit ti defane the true GOD in any way just sayin'. The same logic should apply everywhere.

You don't wander off into a corner of Africa and find a black hole there?

How many people have you ever heard of finding a black hole in their back yard?

None! Because of 2 scientific reasons

1. They don't come back and

2. They are not ever reported.

QED

Your sexy mathmatical equations don't work on me.. I have an immunity potion handy.

To steady my mind.

Oh shoot.... my thawed out marijuana is kinda weepy in feel .


Dry to dry ? questions waits

inhales

exhales

this is smoke been in freeze for allmost 2 year? my record stands on history

wow

my elbows are crossed.

smoked threw clean pipe just cleaned before I smoked this through a just cleaned pipe.

just now

*Sorry, couldn't resist that last part.

I apologize to all those who do not have access to their own self medication.

We are all intelligent beings more or less.

Its my anal canal and all I need from you is some soap and tubing.

You can take your remote control devices and shove them up there in the you know what>

List Government Herding Disasters here:

No wait!!!!! DON't

This is not a Government Herding Disaster thread its a // sjalelshakes head.. back and forth.


What kind of trick was that?

Aha..

Your attempts at hypnotizing me no longer work


what is the shiny object you showed me earlier cough look like again?

I am beyond reproach

wink

just couldnt help yourself eh?

singularities

MadMoonMan wrote:Your sexy mathmatical equations don't work on me.. I have an immunity potion handy.

To steady my mind.

Consider the following sexy equations The 1st is sexy by definition

2nd one, Moonman you ought to appreciated the sexiness that an infinite series is equal to one!

3rd is more cute then sexy, it includes four of the all time important numbers in math

4th is the logistic model for population growth, it estimates the change in a population of creatures across generations with limited resources. Where:
X is the population size at any given time
t is time
k is a population constant depending upon which creatures be considered

Robert May was the first to point out that this model of population growth could produce chaos in 1975. Later important in modeling earthquakes and forecasting weather.

Solve the Beal Problem and win a million $. That is right, the prize money for the Beal’s problem is now bumped up to $1,000,000!
And they said number theorists can't make the big money.


The Beal’s Conjecture: If
Where A, B, C, x, y and z are positive integers and x, y and z > 2,
then A, B and C must have a common prime factor.

That is If A, B and C are co-prime there is no solution for x,y and z.

To collect the prize money, just publish your proof (there is a 2 year waiting time for peer review) and contact bealprize@ams.org. Mr Beal himself will give you a million for the proof.

im brining eggplant
wish me luck
i cant show the math...

So your saying the bigger the breast size equals more kids able to be fed and the greater the poplulation increase?

Have you discounted the fact that lots of men like big boobs and so women with big boobs have more sex more often? in that equation somewhere?

if i cant stack up the blocks
or divide the mud pie to agreee

the math is above me


ya, up there
i get it
but i cant crunch the numbers

MadMoonMan wrote:So your saying the bigger the breast size equals more kids able to be fed and the greater the poplulation increase?

Have you discounted the fact that lots of men like big boobs and so women with big boobs have more sex more often? in that equation somewhere?

Yes, no and yes MadMoonMan ♪♫♪♪♫

The equation is designed for populations, individuals preferences are inconsequential in population modeling. All populations have a variety in individuals, you know Darwinism. Hence the “k” constant.

I digress

It is sexy cause this simple elegant linear equation is also a chaotic function, not that animal population are chaotic with limited resources. We know what happens to critters with limited resources that keep expanding, accurately predictable.

Opened the door to chaos theory and may lead to the proof that irrational numbers such as pi are not necessary to precisely modeling the real universe. Yes Virginia, a prefect circle in reality is impossible, the idea there is exist distances (space) at the quantum level is fiction.


A Chaotic equation is when a near immeasurable small change (input number in one of the parameters) can result in a completely different unintuitive topography, whereas any small but larger change results in an even, expected topography. Hence the chaotic moniker, not random or unpredictable.

.. making it impossible for anyone to replicate their findings.

New Energy Model Offers Transparency to Let Others Replicate Findings
Computer models are used to inform policy decisions about energy, but existing models are generally "black boxes" that don't show how they work, making it impossible for anyone to replicate their findings. Researchers from North Carolina State University have developed a new open-source model and are sharing the data they put into it, to allow anyone to check their work -- an important advance given the environmental and economic impact of energy policy decisions.

"Most models show you the math behind how they work, but don't share the source code that is supposed to implement that math -- so you can't tell how faithful the model is to the mathematics," says Dr. Joseph DeCarolis, an assistant professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at NC State and co-author of a paper on the new model. "And the people utilizing existing models often don't share the data they use. So, in effect, you can't check their work.


"That's a problem, because the results of those models are informing policy decisions with billions of dollars on the line."

The new open-source model, called Temoa, is an energy economy optimization (EEO) model. EEO models are computer models that inform policy and industry decisions by offering insights into how energy costs and production are likely to change over time. For example, EEO models could be used to identify strategies that would drive down energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10, 20 or 30 years.

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wms-decarolis-temoa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/augu ... 81214.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maryam Mirzakhani is the first woman to ever win the Fields Medal – known as the "Nobel Prize of mathematics" – in recognition of her contributions to the understanding of the symmetry of curved surfaces.

Maryam Mirzakhani, a professor of mathematics at Stanford, has been awarded the 2014 Fields Medal, the most prestigious honor in mathematics. Mirzakhani is the first woman to win the prize, widely regarded as the "Nobel Prize of mathematics," since it was established in 1936.
The award recognizes Mirzakhani's sophisticated and highly original contributions to the fields of geometry and dynamical systems, particularly in understanding the symmetry of curved surfaces, such as spheres, the surfaces of doughnuts and of hyperbolic objects. Although her work is considered "pure mathematics" and is mostly theoretical, it has implications for physics and quantum field theory.

Officially known as the International Medal for Outstanding Discoveries in Mathematics, the Fields Medal will be presented by the International Mathematical Union on Aug. 13 at the International Congress of Mathematicians, held this year in Seoul, South Korea.

Mirzakhani was born and raised in Tehran, Iran. As a young girl she dreamed of becoming a writer. By high school, however, her affinity for solving mathematical problems and working on proofs had shifted her sights.

"It is fun – it's like solving a puzzle or connecting the dots in a detective case," she said. "I felt that this was something I could do, and I wanted to pursue this path."

Mirzakhani's earliest work involved solving the decades-old problem of calculating the volumes of moduli spaces of curves on objects known as Riemann surfaces. These are geometric objects whose points each represent a different hyperbolic surface. These objects are mostly theoretical, but real-world examples include amoebae and doughnuts. She solved this by drawing a series of loops across their surfaces and calculating their lengths.

"What's so special about Maryam, the thing that really separates her, is the originality in how she puts together these disparate pieces," said Steven Kerckhoff, a mathematics professor at Stanford and one of Mirzakhani's collaborators. "That was the case starting with her thesis work, which generated several papers in all the top journals. The novelty of her approach made it a real tour de force."

The work, however, could have impacts concerning the theoretical physics of how the universe came to exist and, because it could inform quantum field theory, secondary applications to engineering and material science. Within mathematics, it has implications for the study of prime numbers and cryptography. Despite the breadth of applications of her work, Mirzakhani said she enjoys pure mathematics because of the elegance and longevity of the questions she studies.

"I don't have any particular recipe," Mirzakhani said of her approach to developing new proofs. "It is the reason why doing research is challenging as well as attractive. It is like being lost in a jungle and trying to use all the knowledge that you can gather to come up with some new tricks, and with some luck you might find a way out."

Your tagline is quite out of step with much of the sentiment expressed by technical people today. Many of them are contemptuous of the arts. You mention the subject of the liberal arts curriculum and they become even more derisive. Now that's ignorance.

The 1% require a technocratic class to put their dystopian fantasies into action. And they don't want their heads full of squishy liberal ideas like morality to interfere.

Oh poo! Silly boy Twilson.

maybe you are confusing technical people with mathematicians? Where are you getting that information?

I assure you among mathematicians and theoretical physicist, poetry and philosophy is quite common, the elegance of mathematics is inspiring.
I am fairly certain most if not all great mathematicians, physicists have been armchair philosophers and or poets

Take MadMoonMan here for instance.

Some math freaks want to quantify poetry it is so common among their peers. It is amusing, no?

http://aperiodical.com/2014/04/poetry-in-motion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Discuss.
I’m sorry.
I know it should be in politics.
What is that they say about a lazy mathematician

Sally wrote:Oh poo! Silly boy Twilson.

maybe you are confusing technical people with mathematicians? Where are you getting that information?

I assure you among mathematicians and theoretical physicist, poetry and philosophy is quite common, the elegance of mathematics is inspiring.
I am fairly certain most if not all great mathematicians, physicists have been armchair philosophers and or poets

Take MadMoonMan here for instance.

Some math freaks want to quantify poetry it is so common among their peers. It is amusing, no?


http://aperiodical.com/2014/04/poetry-in-motion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go to a medium or large forum and say that you believe a liberal arts degree is worth getting.

You'll scare up plenty of good little boys who talk like something out of an Ayn Rand nightmare.

Question.

Here are two scenarios for raising a kid. Which one do you think will produce a kid who has more compassion.

1) You are raised in a society where much emphasis is placed on music. You spend most of your time listening to songs that contain humanitarian messages such as "All you need is love".

2) You are raised in a society where much emphasis is placed on technical ability. You spend much of your time alone working on technical machines.

Please walk me through your thoughts here twilson. I'm am confused.
Do you think math is a physical hands-on technical study such as programming or electrical engineering?
It is not, math is an abstract or theoretical technical study.

Mathematicians truly do admire poetry and are inevitable philosophers,

twilson wrote:

Sally wrote:Oh poo! Silly boy Twilson.

maybe you are confusing technical people with mathematicians? Where are you getting that information?

I assure you among mathematicians and theoretical physicist, poetry and philosophy is quite common, the elegance of mathematics is inspiring.
I am fairly certain most if not all great mathematicians, physicists have been armchair philosophers and or poets

Take MadMoonMan here for instance.

Some math freaks want to quantify poetry it is so common among their peers. It is amusing, no?


http://aperiodical.com/2014/04/poetry-in-motion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go to a medium or large forum and say that you believe a liberal arts degree is worth getting.

You'll scare up plenty of good little boys who talk like something out of an Ayn Rand nightmare.

Twilson as usual you’re right.
But I don’t quite see how liberal arts majors and conservatives fears correlate to math freaks by and large enjoying and dabbling in poetry and music? Since they do.
Fwiw my betters and peers are liberal or apolitical (mostly). I don’t know if that means anything, I’m so confused, just trying to figure you all out, I think I havta break out in haiku to collect my girlish thoughts.

twilson wrote:Question.

Here are two scenarios for raising a kid. Which one do you think will produce a kid who has more compassion.

1) You are raised in a society where much emphasis is placed on music. You spend most of your time listening to songs that contain humanitarian messages such as "All you need is love".

2) You are raised in a society where much emphasis is placed on technical ability. You spend much of your time alone working on technical machines.

Please pardon me, I am still pretty slow on the uptake here, do not see the connection there with mathematicians and poetry.
My experience ha been those in a math field are a wide variety of gals and guys, some are handy with machines and tech (don’t confuse tech with science)
And others are embarrassingly mechanically inept.

Am I making any sense?

To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!

From the first Conan movie, Conan the barbarian. I love that move

Of course you do he ain't gonna let no punks push his muscles around

drunkenly swings a heavy sword

with a swa-ord added

so as to slow it down so you can duck as it passes over your head

and Arnie's muscles are easy on the eyes
poetry in motion even when drunk

Being such a kind hearted libertarian conservative GOD believer fundamentalist as I am.

an impossible quirk in the universe created all us from nothing.

because in the end 0 = 0

a burp in the vacuumn

virtual particle

possible but where did that initial energy derive?

for an impossible random bubble

I surrender Sally wins

Boys don't know anything. ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ you won a long time ago.


Lets examine the statement
0=0

Considered the function
Sin(X) / X

So when
X = 0
then
Sin(X) = Sin(0) = 0
therefore
Sin(X)/X = Sin(0)/0 = 0/0
The solution of any division by zero is undefined.

But in the graph of the function sin(X)/X the value when X = 0, y is clearly = 1.
Not undefined. Therefor we may say the limit of function
sin(x)/x
as x approaches 0 is defined to be 1.

Is 0=0 always true in a sinusoidal algebra?

"but where did that initial energy derive?"

Playing with zero can be weird, as Newton gift demonstrated. is it even a number??

all numbers have a space

zero has none, so it cant be a number

I was being silly deran. Same with the “sinusoidal algebra” question. What the heck is that?
Ahhh yet zero as a place holder or the “digit zero” is a different beast, not a number just a positional notation. As I’m sure you know.

2 cool people in history of zero in math are al-Khwarizmi, the farther of algebra, and Brahmagupta, first to use zero as a number. Dig it.

Sally wrote:...
Lets examine the statement
0=0
...

They always divide by zero

But ... But we are not dividing by zero. I was showing it just looks as if we were.
If we were then the at lim(x >> 0) sin(x)/x would be undefined.
But since it is precisely 1, (see the graph) then there is no division by 0. Can be none, by definition.

Limits. It is about limits. It would be the same if x was any other rational value. Say if x=2, the limit would equally be precisely defined, but it would also be intuitive, expected.

I was hoping to show when dealing with zero, or nothing, or lack of, things are not always as they seem.
example : vacuum energy as MadMoonMan ♫♫♪♫ was alluding to.

Thanks for listening.

Zeno's paradox results in an arrow to the eye, even when 'it just looks like we were' dividing by zero, bro.

Sally wrote:I was being silly deran. Same with the “sinusoidal algebra” question. What the heck is that?
Ahhh yet zero as a place holder or the “digit zero” is a different beast, not a number just a positional notation. As I’m sure you know.

i was taking also an uncoventional grip on that matter. had one of those moments

while all numbers produce space, meaning x² or x³ to xn have a dimensional truth to them, thats not the truth with zero, which is even less than "digital" zero in that means, which belongs to this one dimensional singularity, on and off beeing the same vector in space, while the true zero isnt even a singularity = point

zero doesnt exist in our world, no kidding

there is a reason that only chuck norris can devide by zero

Were assigning numbers to arbitrary values attached to forces we will never comprehend.

God is like a pill that relieves the pain of confusion from causal awareness. God is also a number; a value assigned to an arbitraryness that we will also, never fully comprehend. The understanding of pure consciousness or the immortal soul is akin to a fire that burns away the ego as one gets closer to it, this is why one can understand it all while still under the effect of peyote or ayhuscua or dmt or whatever only to lose that understanding upon returning to this reality.

There is only one soul. Residing within every life form and every particle of matter in this universe from outside this universe. This causes a paradox when considering it from our physical universe of space and time. In a place without space and time, there can only be one. We are here to experience this universe without ultimate understanding or enlightenment. To give god a break from all that eternity.

So party down for fucks sake, Enjoy yourselves.

Lets cut to the chase. Since something exists and we are talking about it.

Proves.

Nothingness can not ever have existed.

0=0 shows a balance

as in quantumn physics.

common sense don't work

A virtual partical no matter how imaginablealby impossiblly impossible could an event occur "virtual particle" from

nothingness

there had to be some original "energy" for something/anything to derive them.

The fact we are here proves and original being.... creator.. eternal energy.

all I'm saying

the fact we are here proves

0=0

is impossible without virtual particles

but where did them virtual particles come from

I wasn't just born on this earth from alien implants?

Where'd the dang aliens come frum?

Doh.. some aliens planted them on their world ..

before the older aliens planted them on their worlds

forever and ever back into eternity.

What he said, and I just love graphs. A lot.

Sconeofark wrote:Were assigning numbers to arbitrary values attached to forces we will never comprehend.

Ahhh Party pooper
And I just want to have fun, quantify things then play with equal sings.

Sconeofark wrote: So party down for fucks sake, Enjoy yourselves.

Jeeppers peepers! I can not argue with your conclusions, although your tertiary thought deduction were over my little head
Math is cool, I love when it models the observable world in elegant, beautiful and sometime unimaginable ways; Not unlike your poetry.

country boy wrote:Zeno's paradox results in an arrow to the eye, even when 'it just looks like we were' dividing by zero, bro.

Thanks!! this was one I wasn’t aware of per se, and another good example of how Funny Things Happen when playing with zero.
Using Zeno’s mind experiment outside of time. That is time=0. Examining just the 3D representation of arrow, where time can neither move forward nor time exist before. To quantify : time+1 = 0 and time-1 = 0 are both true in this frame of reference.
(Notice the obvious math paradox when quantifying his experiment and of course he was unaware of general relativity)

Then you get an unexpected conclusion that motion is impossible does not exist in any frame of reference. Not quite saying it’s nonsense but not expected eh?

Actually thanks again this gave me a bit more to wax on about later, love to hear your thoughts on it.

these foreign language threads really drag...

To quantify : time+1 = 0 and time-1 = 0 are both true in this frame of reference.

my previous thoughts started btw with elementary and atomic hydrogen for all intrested

its use as a placeholder for number one , but number, elementary unit ... well atomic and elemtary hydrogen should be one and the same thing, but it aint .. lol ... well to make it short thats also the reason that 1 as a number has a duality to it, waves and particles and that stuff, which via heisenberg, only depends onto the observer .. so we are using math, and while we do it we play the role of the observer and thus interacting with the results, sounds funny, but look again at this qoute above

To quantify : time+1 = 0 and time-1 = 0 are both true in this frame of reference.

which is correct, so either our language is broken (math) or our perception, choose wise lol


well to continue, because 1², 1³ .. etc gives this aformetioned space, it can produce a wave function, but also because of the duality of its nature it can be a state, which makes the equation possible

what im talking about here is not so math or physics, its more of an understanding of our own words their meanings and their interaction with stuff that sourrounds us like those "languages" math and physics, learn to rules to break em, but i dont know em, maybe thats something good , free yourself from dogmas ... best thing i dont have a fucking clue if it makes sense to somebody

Sally wrote:...
Actually thanks again this gave me a bit more to wax on about later, love to hear your thoughts on it.

I think deran is on the right track with:
'so either our language is broken (math) or our perception,'
Although I'd say it's 'shadows on a cave wall'

Happy happy Pi Day. 3-14

 π is the symbol used in mathematics to represent a constant — the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
π is irrational. That means it can't be expressed as a ratio.

Now let's do the rational thing and have some pie

th PI is strong...

Sally wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 14, 2023 11:31 am

 π is the symbol used in mathematics to represent a constant — the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
π is irrational. That means it can't be expressed as a ratio.

If c is the circumference and d is the diameter of a circle
And Pi is the ratio of the circumference to it's diameter
Then. π=c/d
Whoops. I expressed it as a ratio.
WTF!?

who's wrong me or Sally?

I say let's sit down and have some pie and think about this.

Before I reveal the solution.

Anybody else want to give try at the resolution of the paradox:
Pi has an irrational number cannot be expressed as a ratio
But the definition of Pi is the ratio of circumference/diameter.
Both statements cannot be correct.

isnt 22/7 an expression of a ratio?

Yes. But that is only a rational approximation of Pi.

Solution: An error on my part. The definition should read with the Bold being new

 π is the symbol used in mathematics to represent a constant — the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
π is irrational. That means it can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers.

Thus In
π = Circumference/diameter.
If diameter is a rational number then the circumference is irrational.
If circumference is rational then the diameter is irrational.*

So π=c/d. is indeed a ratio but with at least one irrational non integer number.
My bad. I failed to properly define an irrational number.


*The circumference of a circle = diameter × pi. (2πr)

Well a circle will always be relative to any other circle in the ratios contained within each circle. That is pi, and that is the rationale.
I'm guessing you dabble in spirals and the wonders of numbers. Fractals and musical scales. ==Sacred Geometry

Then there's the probability and statistics crowd
You should ask GPTchat some of your riddles. Maybe you can break it.

Sally wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 15, 2023 3:40 pm

Solution: An error on my part. The definition should read with the Bold being new

 π is the symbol used in mathematics to represent a constant — the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
π is irrational. That means it can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers.

Thus In
π = Circumference/diameter.
If diameter is a rational number then the circumference is irrational.
If circumference is rational then the diameter is irrational.*

So π=c/d. is indeed a ratio but with at least one irrational non integer number.
My bad. I failed to properly define an irrational number.


*The circumference of a circle = diameter × pi. (2πr)

I disagree. If the rational numbers are infinite, then we simply haven't found the two rational numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of Pi as we still don't know what Pi is in decimal form – it doesn't mean the ratio doesn't exist.

No-one has ever calculated Pi to its last decimal. Perhaps no-one ever will. But that doesn't mean it doesn't end . . . or go on for infinity. If it does go on for infinity, we will never know – so there is no way of proving it doesn't.

An "irrational number" is therefore a number for which a ratio exists that we have yet to discover. It is not irrational at all. I just used a rational argument to define it.

Prawn Connery wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:34 am

I disagree. If the rational numbers are infinite, then we simply haven't found the two rational numbers that can be expressed as a ratio of Pi as we still don't know what Pi is in decimal form – it doesn't mean the ratio doesn't exist.

No-one has ever calculated Pi to its last decimal. Perhaps no-one ever will. But that doesn't mean it doesn't end . . . or go on for infinity. If it does go on for infinity, we will never know – so there is no way of proving it doesn't.

An "irrational number" is therefore a number for which a ratio exists that we have yet to discover. It is not irrational at all. I just used a rational argument to define it.

Your understanding of infinities is abysmal, I understand now why you cheat on your wife with me for infinities, she'd probably leave you.


While there are infinite number of rationals and lrrationals on the number line, pi itself is not infinite, pi has a discrete place on the number line. pi is not an infinite string of non repeating digits. No matter how far we calculate pi out in decimal form, we are only calculating an approximation and always will. Even if we could represent Pi as in infinite string of digits, it would still only be an approximation of pi, since pi is transcendental. That is we cannot experience it but we can have knowledge of it,...and infinite polynomial sums.. I digress..

Note: decimal representation for other viewers.
3.14285714 Is a notation for a ratio of two integers.
314285714/100000000
Which reduces to 22/7

I'm having trouble writing a mathematical proof out with ascii text, I'm going to have to do it on paper and take a picture. You'll need to have a simple understanding calculus and polynomials. And uses our good friend Proof by Contradiction. Because pi is also transcendental, no proof is 'simple'.

...
There is a saying that the best mathematician is a lazy mathematician. So rather then recreate Niven's proof by hand here is a link to several mathematical proofs that pi is irrational.
https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Pi_is_Irrational

My understanding of semantics is excellent. Infinity is infinity. Mathematics may define infinities as it pleases, but anything other infinity is not infinity. If one infinity is defined as larger than another (as in Cantor's theory), then the original infinity was never infinite to begin with. Logically, it may appear that some infinities are larger than others. For example:

The list of whole numbers from 1 can be infinite.

The list of decimal numbers between 1 and 2 can be infinite.

So if all the numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite, surely that means there are more of them than the whole numbers from one to infinity. After all, there are infinity decimal numbers for every whole number you can think of. So that's infinity x infinity.

But the beauty of the word "infinity" – indeed, the true (human) concept of "infinity" – means there is no end. For every decimal between 1 and 2, there is another whole number. And on it goes. If you reach the end of one before the other, it either wasn't the end, or it wasn't infinity.

Now you say Pi is an approximation . . . but that's only because we haven't found an exact way to measure it, no? To do so, we would need an infinite number of straight lines to intersect to form a circle (a polygon with infinite sides). Or invent a device that could measure a piece of string to its enth decimal place (how long is a piece of string? No-one knows!).

So in fact, if we could measure infinity, we could also measure Pi to the last decimal place. And once we've done that, then we could find a number short of infinity divided by another number short of infinity that could be expressed as 3 + said decimal places.

Viola! The possibility (if not the reality) of being able to measure Pi surely means there is the same possibility of proving it is a rational number.

As for experiencing Pi (or infinity), perhaps you cannot experience it and I cannot experience it, but does that mean it can't be experienced?

If there are infinite possibilities, does that not mean there are infinite experiences? Transcendental really only refers to transcending the human condition, which is pretty limited to begin with.

As for experiencing Pi (or infinity), perhaps you cannot experience it and I cannot experience it, but does that mean it can't be experienced?

If there are infinite possibilities, does that not mean there are infinite experiences? Transcendental really only refers to transcending the human condition, which is pretty limited to begin with.

Yes, the human condition, it was easier than describing the infinite polynomial, that's what the mathematical definition of it came up with, so that's only why the transcendental handle was used. If we try to quantify it with integers we come up with a contradiction. A particular infinite sums of polynomials doesn't fit anywhere on the number line. If we say it does we get a contradiction.

But we know there is an exact value to the length a circle's circumference. We roll out the circle and there's a length in the real world. Now that we have several proofs that pi is irrational we know why we have been unable measure or mathematically quantify it in the real world because it's also Transcendental number, that is a number that is not algebraic, that is not the root of a non zero polynomial with rational coefficients.

pi is wierd. Or maybe our understanding of math or the real world. Just from trying to exactly measure the circumference of a wheel.

Comes back to do we say a unit circle is one unit diameter or one unit circumference. . Ahh the beautiful poetry of math. Can A perfect Circle exist in the real world?

Anywho. I hope that's not too rambling, I'm interested in discussing the rest of your post later.♫♪ I got to yell at some people on the phone now.

Sally wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 16, 2023 3:47 pm

Can A perfect Circle exist in the real world?

Funnily, that is exactly what I was arguing with my wife this morning. But I can't really discuss these things with her in a rational manner because she gets frustrated with me. I would never belittle her profession, but as is the case in most relationships, people tend to takes things more personal the closer they are to said person, and so she things I am just stirring the pot (so to speak).

In theory there is a perfect circle, but in reality we will never know. It appears to me that mathematics is very much reliant on being able to be measured: we can only prove the ratio of Pi if we can accurately measure the circumference and diameter; we can only prove the lengths and angles of each side of a triangle if we can measure them; etc.

We can't prove any of these things in reality because we can't measure down far enough – infinity inverted.

Of course, we can try to prove things on paper, and these proofs are good enough to get us to the edge of the solar system and beyond, but they are really only "good enough". We always have to draw the line at some point because otherwise we would spend infinity time measuring something to infinity to find its true value.

Speaking of truth, the truth of the matter is I can't argue mathematics because I'm not a mathematician – not even close. But I can at least argue semantics because I am a wordsmith (at least by trade). That a lot of maths – to me, at least – relies on semantics is proof that it is not actually real.

Maths needs rules – without rules, there is no maths – and so rules are limitations.

Infinity is not limited. So perhaps it doesn't even belong in maths. I suspect it doesn't. That at least gives me grounds to argue its definition.

Infinity is not limited. So perhaps it doesn't even belong in maths. I suspect it doesn't. That at least gives me grounds to argue its definition.

Hmm my perspective is if we can observe it or imagine it it belongs in 'maths'. Even describing transcendental non-corporeal things as our soul.

Maths needs rules – without rules, there is no maths – and so rules are limitations.

Rules! We don't need no stinking rules we're mathematicians

Sorry for intrudeing into your relationship but all mathematicians have an insecurity. we've all studied the monsters in math. Goes back to that video 'there's a hole in the bottom of mathematics' (with Cantor's diagonal). Godel's incompleteness theorems: a complete set of rules is impossible.

Thus I think mathematics is a religion, philosophy. . mathematicians believe it's a truth and we dare anybody to prove otherwise. Intrinsic insecurities.

In theory there is a perfect circle, but in reality we will never know. It appears to me that mathematics is very much reliant on being able to be measured

Quantify, not so much measured but quantifiedable. example the Wave Function. I at least can live with that pi is unmeasurable.
.

and I also believe you're a mathematician at heart

We can't prove any of these things in reality because we can't measure down far enough

Which comes to the question once we get down to the molecular level, the atomic level, the quantum level. what is distance at the atomic quantum level, the rules are different. Distance (space-time) doesn't seem to exist as we see existence.

To get accurate results beyond the atomic level distances, we have to add up Divergent infinite sums, as if they do converge, convergent series.** So I see it as infinites do resolved, we call that a Quantum level, with respect to the Human Condition

So how can we measure exactly once we get to the atomic quantum level which measurement of pi will take us to. Space-length is meaningless relative to a us here in the macro world.
That's why when we take a length and move it's 2 to ends to match up and make a circle, somewhere on the quantum level I believe they can never match you can't just nudge it closer to fit there is no space time inside atomic quantum level. whatever goes on inside those dimensionsless quarks. That is dimensionsless of our known four dimensions anway.

Works the other way, infinite distances in space. That's why i think some of the models came up with 11 dimensions and we argue is the universe donut shape, closed, open...

Footntes
**

Sally wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:42 pm

When you're dealing with infinite series you need to know what kind of infiite series you're talkin about.

Such as 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5...
The summation of intergers from 1 to Infinity.

You pick the wrong infinity (change philosophy) and you end up with a impossible but legitimate, result that summation equals negative one twelfth.

-1/12 = 1+ 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7...
Right, an infinite addition of positive integers will equal a negative fraction. I have not provided the proof, there are multiple proofs out there deriving this solution, QED and Quantum string theory use it.
We have a valid and provable yet impossible result.
Well in the real world it's a paradox, that's why we know infinities are not all the same. Math defines different infinities with different attributes.

BTW above series is a is Divergent infinite series and you get that non-intuitive result if you treat it as a Convergent infinite series.

I would argue there are likely infinite universes that are expanding and contracting into each other all at once. One of my theories is if this universe is expanding at a faster rate as it gets bigger, then that is because the universe (likely multiverses) on the other side (and all around) is (are) contracting faster as it (they) get/s smaller.

That is to say, our universe is expanding into the space left by neighbouring universe/s contracting. As they contract, they get denser, gravity gets stronger, and thus the contractions speed up – a bit like the pull of a black hole increases as it gets bigger, but in this case the universe is getting smaller as it contracts into a singularity before it goes BANG again and forms a new universe that is a little bit different to the one it replaces, even though it is made of the same "stuff".

This goes on forever, every singularity made up of slightly different "stuff" – infinite in number – with each unique (and infinite) singularity able to explode into an infinite number of slightly different universes that together form every possibility and experience conceivable and inconceivable.

Like a room full of balloons inflating, deflating, inflating, deflating . . .

I deal in photons now, which I find infinitely fascinating, because they experience no time and can thus be in two (and more) places at once. From the perspective of the photon, it disappears the moment it appears and yet in that immeasurable instant has potentially travelled across the entire universe itself!

If a particle can be everywhere all at once, does that mean there are infinite dimensions? The photon has height, width, depth (3D) and at this time (4D) it is here, but it is also here (5D) and here (6D) and here (7D) as it travels at the speed of itself (light). It is at any point along an infinite line all at the same time.

Now paradoxes . . . probably don't exist. Because the above perspective proves some things can not only be in two states at once, but infinite states at once.

We ourselves are a paradox, because we shouldn't even be here – but we are. Something, nothing, something, nothing . . . perhaps they are simply the same thing. We talk of positive and negative being opposite states, but the third state is the one that cancels them out – the "nothing". Big, fat zero.

But again, I am no more a physicist than I am a mathematician. I'm just someone who has always found it hard to sleep at night.

Interesting if you say they , let's just say multiverses for convenience, connect orthogonal into whatever they are expanding-ontracting into. (Or onto as with Munchy's holograph universe.) Would expect a correlation that is they, the different multiverses, are not independent phenomenons but connected in some way as a dependent phenomenon

That is to say, our universe is expanding into the space left by neighbouring universe/s contracting. As they contract, they get denser, gravity gets stronger, and thus the contractions speed up – a bit like the pull of a black hole increases as it gets bigger, but in this case the universe is getting smaller as it contracts into a singularity before it goes BANG again and forms a new universe that is a little bit different to the one it replaces, even though it is made of the same "stuff".

Sure sure. The Universal constants would change proportionally. yin and yang

I'm still reading

If a particle can be everywhere all at once, does that mean there are infinite dimensions? The photon has height, width, depth (3D) and at this time (4D) it is here, but it is also here (5D) and here (6D) and here (7D) as it travels at the speed of itself (light). It is at any point along an infinite line all at the same time.

it's not a particle. The phenomenon is described as a wave function. Which has two orthogonal attributes electric and magnetism oscillating in and out of sync canceling each other. I think it's a mistake to think of it as a particle. Like an electron or quark. personally I think of it as a phenomenon intersecting us interdimensionally. And has no dimensionality in our time-space. There I said it.

Where do you get the idea that a photon has dimension other than time relative to us?


 If a particle can be everywhere all at once, does that mean there are infinite dimensions? 

Speculating, no you just need to reach an Infinity somewhere like infinite number directions in Quantum Electricdynamics, which I think you're referring to. quantifying that Infinity becomes a Quantum level, that is another dimension orthogonal to us. So you don't need infinite dimensions you just need one more. The every occurring (n+1).

Still reading

We ourselves are a paradox, because we shouldn't even be here – but we are. Something, nothing, something, nothing . . . perhaps they are simply the same thing. We talk of positive and negative being opposite states, but the third state is the one that cancels them out – the "nothing". Big, fat zero.

But again, I am no more a physicist than I am a mathematician. I'm just someone who has always found it hard to sleep at night.

We're in the same boat mate.

How about this: I started studying microbiology found myself drawn into quantum mechanics. Cuz I got to know.

The way some large proteins fold is an unmanageable amount of possibilities. But the only way they do fold in 3D space is what makes life. Why?

So what are the rules that makes a protein fold you've got to start looking at atom interactions that make chemistry. Which needs the math of quantum mechanics to describe the rules for those atoms. Which led me to the joys Infinity and paradoxes. Soooo.. long story short, For me life may be just an artifact of multidimensional phenomenon passing through or interacting with us orthogonally, at right angles, only when you isolate four of the dimensions is what we describe as life. Discounting the other orthogonal right angle dimensions mathematical rules that we apply to right angles in 3d led to Studying angles that are not 90° right angles (in 3d) results in pi again. Fwiw

Geeze Sal, took me a while to wade through the muck to find this thread again . . .

Is a photon a particle, is it a wave, or is it both? It has properties of both, no? It carries the same energy as an electron. And it can transfer that energy from one place to another.

So if that energy can be in many places at once – because from the perspective of the packet of energy (photon) it moves from one place to another, and through a direct line of space-time in no time at all – is it actually moving through space-time?

Is that what you mean by "no dimensionality in our space-time"? Because – little that I know about quantum mechanics – that is kind of (clumisly) what I was trying to say.

We do know that a photon influences space-time, yet appears interdependent of it.

So from the photon's perspective, where, exactly, does it start and stop? Is it not in all places along that space-time line at once?

Sorry you had trouble finding the place, so glad you're back ♫♪♫♪♫
I'm going to start at the bottom

So from the photon's perspective, where, exactly, does it start and stop? Is it not in all places along that space-time line at once?
It ends and starts at right angles from us, orthogonal to space-time
Space Time is our three dimensions. As I said the photon is interacting at right angles to each of our three dimensions. My opinion.

Think of a ball passing through a two-dimensional plane the two dimensional beings see a small dot form and grow bigger and bigger and then shrink and shrink and disappear. Okay here's a better one imagine a tree with its branches and leaves trunk and and a two-dimensional plane intersecting some of the leaves, branches ,roots.
The 2D beings will see separate phenomenon concluded there are similarities in the phenomenon but without the third dimension can't explain it fully.

Light, I don't think we've been able to isolate a single Photon, how can you measure it it's not a particle. it's a wave function. It has properties of wave it has properties of a particle but it is neither.

Whoa! energy that's a can of worms...

OK, but space-time is four dimensions, no?

It's that fourth dimension I'm referring to.

No. Only mathematically if you have only four dimensions. once you include another dimension orthogonally time doesn't work as a dimension that is you can't describe things in a five Vector with t being a component. we never talk about A Spacetime location we talk about we talk about phenomenon with respect to time. In an orthogonal dimension I have struggled incorporating time between all that because time is proportional to Mass which has the two components SpaceTime. Just as light has the two components Electric magnetic

We can measure the speed of light, so we know that the photon travels through our 4D space-time. We can also measure the length of each wave, so we know the peaks and troughs have a "beginning" and an "end". We can measure the energy to an electron equivalent, so we know it has something akin to mass (E/C2) – even though we assume it is massless.

But to the photon, the "beginning" and "end" (or peaks and troughs) of its wave function are in many places at once: where it starts, where it ends, and everything in-between.

At least, that's how I've been interpreting it.

Sally wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:03 pm

No. Only mathematically if you have only four dimensions. once you include another dimension orthogonally time doesn't work as a dimension that is you can't describe things in a five Vector with t being a component. we never talk about A Spacetime location we talk about we talk about phenomenon with respect to time. In an orthogonal dimension I have struggled incorporating time between all that because time is proportional to Mass which has the two components SpaceTime. Just as light has the two components Electric magnetic

Time is also proportional to speed . . . which is proportional to mass. Time is still a position, no? That's what speed is – positional.

I think the beginning and end is when we observe it. With respect to time. answering the previous post

I'm going to have to stop here because I'm in a hotel with a tired wife who can hear my keyboard . . . The speed of sound is proportional to the speed of divorce in this case

Sally wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:12 pm

I think the beginning and end is when we observe it. With respect to time. answering the previous post

Ah, and if we don't observe it . . . Buddhism and all that. G'night.

Time is proportional to speed? no time is proportional to The Observer, no matter how fast you go relative to you time is constant, ,,

later gator thanks

Star Talk
Exploring the Edge of the Universe with Janna Levin

Sally wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:14 pm

Time is proportional to speed? no time is proportional to The Observer, no matter how fast you go relative to you time is constant, ,,

later gator thanks

I should have said velocity. And it is proportional to time in the same inertial frame of reference. After all velocity is distance (displacement) over time.

Ah, these discussions require a bit of thought, which is why it's easier to post in the Ukraine War thread whenever I get a spare moment in my travels. But I do want to keep exploring.

You were right, speed and velocity are same thing. Acceleration would be a different animal.
Right, Speed is proportional to time to an inertia observer in the same inertial frame of reference.

Time, and all properties of physics, are measured the same in all frame of references. Otherwise the speeding Observer and the Observer at rest would measure the speed of light different.

Kind of side note to think about: as one is closer to Mass, even if two observers are at rest respect to each other, the one closer to the Mass is experiencing time different relative to the Observer further away from the same mass.

mass has two components space and time.
let's explore that for fun.
Light, its Mass is equal to zero.
Its passage of time is also zero.
But an inertia observer has mass (thus space) so she has to measures light over time.
Conjecture:
mass = K(space × Time)? Where K is some proportional constant.
Similar to E = m(c^2). Where c^2 is the proportional constant.
Therefore Time = (K×m)/space? That is Time is Inversely proportional to space for the same mass?

Implies if you have time then space can't be zero, division by zero

nice video Ripper

Neil deGrasse Tyson 'cheesy' joke on pi day

The pair still needs to get their work examined by a peer-reviewed journal, but amazing ♫ ♫♪


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... are_btn_tw
Two girls say they have new proof for 2,000-year-old mathematical theorem

New Orleans students Calcea Johnson and Ne’Kiya Jackson recently presented their findings on the Pythagorean theorem

Fri 24 Mar 2023

Two New Orleans high school seniors who say they have proven Pythagoras’s theorem by using trigonometry – which academics for two millennia have thought to be impossible – are being encouraged by a prominent US mathematical research organization to submit their work to a peer-reviewed journal.
Calcea Johnson and Ne’Kiya Jackson, who are students of St Mary’s Academy, recently gave a presentation of their findings at the American Mathematical Society south-eastern chapter’s semi-annual meeting in Georgia.

They were reportedly the only two high schoolers to give presentations at the meeting attended by math researchers from institutions including the universities of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana State, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Texas Tech. And they spoke about how they had discovered a new proof for the Pythagorean theorem.

The 2,000-year-old theorem established that the sum of the squares of a right triangle’s two shorter sides equals the square of the hypotenuse – the third, longest side opposite the shape’s right angle. Legions of schoolchildren have learned the notation summarizing the theorem in their geometry classes: a2+b2=c2.
As mentioned in the abstract of Johnson and Jackson’s 18 March mathematical society presentation, trigonometry – the study of triangles – depends on the theorem. And since that particular field of study was discovered, mathematicians have maintained that any alleged proof of the Pythagorean theorem which uses trigonometry constitutes a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning, a term used when someone tries to validate an idea with the idea itself.
Johnson and Jackson’s abstract adds that the book with the largest known collection of proofs for the theorem – Elisha Loomis’s The Pythagorean Proposition – “flatly states that ‘there are no trigonometric proofs because all the fundamental formulae of trigonometry are themselves based upon the truth of the Pythagorean theorem’.”

But, the abstract counters, “that isn’t quite true”. The pair asserts: “We present a new proof of Pythagoras’s Theorem which is based on a fundamental result in trigonometry – the Law of Sines – and we show that the proof is independent of the Pythagorean trig identity sin2x+cos2x=1.” In short, they could prove the theorem using trigonometry and without resorting to circular reasoning.

thats big...

Sally wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2013 12:22 pm

Atheist Math Teachers Will Force Your Children to Learn “Irrational” Numbers

God is great. His reasoning is beyond that of yours or mine, and all of His creation is without flaw. Everything He makes, He makes for a reason, and nothing He makes is lacking in order or clarity.

it there is this supposed god he is nothing great
in fact
hes a torturer killer succubus who hovers in to feel all the pain and grief each of his 'creations' has to suffer living in the hell scape he made the world to be.

fuck him
and FUCK anyone who things hes is anything but an evil beast.

Sally wrote: ↑

Tue May 02, 2023 10:00 am

very cool but i dont see how they figure they get the book back based on that idea.


there are nearly infinate different combinations of numbers that will produce a and b, so

wheres the controls that forces those simple numbers to recompute the data that went into their arrival at?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Recompute the data by the measurement of how far precisely the distance the notch is between the two poles. a and b. Once you have these numbers create a ratio of them a/b, compute that number. Then take every three digits and treat it as a character for decoding using the mapping: 001=a, 002=b ect.
Thanks for listening.

The beauty of numbers. Poetry.


Every number of the form ababab is divisible by 37.

Examples
101010 / 37=2730
282828 / 37 =7371
111111 / 37=3003

Let's see why
ababab = (101010 x a) + (10101 x b)

Factor 101010 and 10101
= (37 x 2730 x a) + (37 x 273 x b)

Notice 37 is a common factor thus
= 37 x [(2730 x a) + (273 x b)]

Hence every ababab number is divisible by 37.

Neato!

can chaos exist within math? or would math bring order?

"can chaos exist within math?"
Yes. there's a whole study of mathematics called chaos theory
Many mechanical systems which display chaotic Behavior are not intuitively predictable even though every element is deterministic.

"or would math bring order."
On face value of your question: No. Check out the video "Math's Fundamental Flaw". I posted it in your 'left vs right' thread. Good times with Prawn Connery. <3

Is this an example of a perfect circle in the real world? Not just some theoretical math construct.
That an irrational and transcendental distance (pi) is in the real world!

But can a thread form a perect circle?

Here's a polyester molecule

You're right, there's the intrinsic irregularity of the molecules in 3D.

I was thinking it would be perfect because the tension forces would be equally all around, nature would take care of the problem.
since posting this I see the tension forces would not be equal all the way around. being in a square frame the corners will skew the tension force directions at a slightly different angle.

Just examining the forces and not the molecules, the only way to get a perfect circle soap hole would have a perfect circled frame to start with.