NationStates Jolt Archive

it's true! look at the facts!

everything is made of numbers

We don't like no stinking Pythagoreans round here. :wink:

everything is made of numbers

We don't like no stinking Pythagoreans round here. :wink:

I'm not a Pythagorean, I've never even HEARD of Pythagorea! Is that a enemy nation of yours, or something?

ah, yes, but numbers do not exist. Numbers are only in the mind...

everything is made of numbers

We don't like no stinking Pythagoreans round here. :wink:

I'm not a Pythagorean, I've never even HEARD of Pythagorea! Is that a enemy nation of yours, or something?

You haven't heard of Pythagoris (sp)? How much maths have you done? No offence

ah, yes, but numbers do not exist. Numbers are only in the mind...

no, man, they're everywhere, the universe is filled with insanely complex ratios and quantities, x-box is huge smoke weed everyday

A*A +B*B =C*C

everything is made of numbers

We don't like no stinking Pythagoreans round here. :wink:

I'm not a Pythagorean, I've never even HEARD of Pythagorea! Is that a enemy nation of yours, or something?

You haven't heard of Pythagoris (sp)? How much maths have you done? No offence

I know who Pythagoras is, I'm just playin' around :P

I'm in pre-cal, anyway

A*A +B*B =C*C

wtf

dude, you've gotta specify stuff. It's not "A*A + B*B = C*C," it's "the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the length of the opposite side squared plus the length of the adjacent side squared." And that's not even the general form, biatch

dude, you've gotta specify stuff. It's not "A*A + B*B = C*C," it's "the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the length of the opposite side squared plus the length of the adjacent side squared." And that's not even the general form, biatch*sigh*...I'm not a dude... first off... and secondly... I'm a forum lurker... I leave short incomplete messages... it's just what I do.

everything is made of numbers

We don't like no stinking Pythagoreans round here. :wink:

I'm not a Pythagorean, I've never even HEARD of Pythagorea! Is that a enemy nation of yours, or something?

You haven't heard of Pythagoris (sp)? How much maths have you done? No offence

I know who Pythagoras is, I'm just playin' around :P

I'm in pre-cal, anyway

Sorry, wasn't saying you were stupid :wink: . Good call then :)

I agree, numbers are everwhere and almost everything, but not absolutely everything, can be in some way explained through numbers. As I speak the old 01 is in action.

x= (-b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2a

dude, you've gotta specify stuff. It's not "A*A + B*B = C*C," it's "the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the length of the opposite side squared plus the length of the adjacent side squared." And that's not even the general form, biatch*sigh*...I'm not a dude... first off... and secondly... I'm a forum lurker... I leave short incomplete messages... it's just what I do.

everyone's a dude, dude. like, cmon. don't you x-box is huge>

well..I thought this up when I was really tired..I think it's kinda floating away now

I can count from 0 to 31 on one hand

x= (-b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac))/2aQuadratic Formula

Math is based on faith...

irrational numbers are undefined and thus anything based on math is unprovable...

Math is based on faith...

irrational numbers are undefined and thus anything based on math is unprovable...

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

i hate math. math can die. a horrible painful death.

i hate math. math can die. a horrible painful death.

I'm sorry, horrible, painful deaths start with Multivariable Calculus =P

calculus is the worst. i just don't really understand it totally.

i mean, in theory i do, but not in practice. like physics.

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

all circles are based on a formula involving the use of Pi... the trouble is, we're not exactly sure what Pi is...

We accept that Pi is essential to the formula, and that using Pi will give us the answer -- but can we define Pi? Is it anything short of a diety? No... Pi is an unquestionable authority... Pi is both undefined and essiential

Math is a fath-based religion...

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

all circles are based on a formula involving the use of Pi... the trouble is, we're not exactly sure what Pi is...

We accept that Pi is essential to the formula, and that using Pi will give us the answer -- but can we define Pi? Is it anything short of a diety? No... Pi is an unquestionable authority... Pi is both undefined and essiential

Math is a fath-based religion...

Pi is exactly three! - Professor Krink

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

all circles are based on a formula involving the use of Pi... the trouble is, we're not exactly sure what Pi is...

We accept that Pi is essential to the formula, and that using Pi will give us the answer -- but can we define Pi? Is it anything short of a diety? No... Pi is an unquestionable authority... Pi is both undefined and essiential

Math is a fath-based religion...

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form. That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form.

That is my point! Irrational numbers are undefined, thus all math is based on the unknown... Every scientific fact that is supported by a mathmatical formula is based on the unknown!




That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

Yes, but every time you double the digits of Pi and compute that into the formula you end up with a different answer... and if the digits of Pi are infinite then even the formula that defines circles changes as we learn more about it... so, are circles always changing? Do they even exist? If you believe in Pi, and also know that Pi is unknown, and also know that Pi is a fact --- then you have already accepted the unknown as fact... that is faith!

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

all circles are based on a formula involving the use of Pi... the trouble is, we're not exactly sure what Pi is...

We accept that Pi is essential to the formula, and that using Pi will give us the answer -- but can we define Pi? Is it anything short of a diety? No... Pi is an unquestionable authority... Pi is both undefined and essiential

Math is a fath-based religion...

Pi is exactly three! - Professor Krink

Actually it's a little more than half of the fingers you've got on a hand...

The problem with this thread is that it started off on an unprovable assumption. Take for instance the equation: A-A=The abosolute value of "0". Zero is a symbol for nothing, so you have tried to show that nothing exist.

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form.

That is my point! Irrational numbers are undefined, thus all math is based on the unknown... Every scientific fact that is supported by a mathmatical formula is based on the unknown!




That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

Yes, but every time you double the digits of Pi and compute that into the formula you end up with a different answer... and if the digits of Pi are infinite then even the formula that defines circles changes as we learn more about it... so, are circles always changing? Do they even exist? If you believe in Pi, and also know that Pi is unknown, and also know that Pi is a fact --- then you have already accepted the unknown as fact... that is faith!

But there is my point. Just beecause we cannot completely represent something doesn't mean it's unknown or doesn't exist. We know more than enough about pi to calculate circles to a tiny, TINY fraction of a percent of accuracy which is more than enough for application in our world. Using pi we can very accurately calculate the radius of a hydrogen atom, or even smaller.

Also, the universe is infinite is size, or at least we think because we haven't found an end yet. That doesn't mean that it exists only in faith. We know that pi exists. It is part of the ratio of a circle's area when compared to it's radius. Just because we cannot completely represent it in our system of numbers doesn't mean it does not exist and that everything about our knowledge is flawed.

You seem to be confusing undefined with unknown. Something is not undefined in math when it cannot be wholely represented in our number system. It is just partially unknown. In the case of pi, to a very minute degree. Something is undefined in math when it doesn't exist (i.e., any number or equation divided by 0). Pi exists. Live with it. Your computer runs because of our understanding of things like the square root of -1 and pi. It works, it exists, and it is applicable.

Your argument that is flawed and incorrect. I rest my case as you cannot back up your claims and I can refute them.

I can count from 0 to 31 on one hand

Sixty-three here. Me and Anne Boleyn.
8)

I can count from 0 to 31 on one hand
...or 1023 on two, beyond that you need to take your shoes off.

I can count from 0 to 31 on one hand

Sixty-three here. Me and Anne Boleyn.
8)

...or 1023 on two, beyond that you need to take your shoes off.

LOL Rock on. I'm glad that some people here understand what I said

I can count from 0 to 31 on one hand

Sixty-three here. Me and Anne Boleyn.
8)

I know a girl with eleven and a half toes (one is conjoined) - I have no idea how to render that in binary: 21.5 bit numbers?

everything is made of numbers

Ah yes, but what are numbers made out of?*



*note: the fact that zero is a number problematizes this question.

everything is made of numbers

Ah yes, but what are numbers made out of?

you can't fool me, its numbers all the way down.

everything is made of numbers

Ah yes, but what are numbers made out of?

you can't fool me, its numbers all the way down.

Two alternate responses here:

Either:

1) Let me be the first in this thread to attempt to paraphrase Frege's answer to my own question - "the number zero is the number of the members of the set of all things not identical to themselves." I will leave it up to someone else to play the role of Bertrand Russell and point out why Frege was an idiot...

or,

2) Ah yes, but numbers themselves are dependent on set theory, which isn't itself made out of numbers.

Edit: and as a bonus for them what didn't get the Pythagoras reference, he was the first to claim that all things are numbers: more information can be found here -

www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pythagor.htm

and here

www.thebigview.com/greeks/pythagoras.html

but neither of them really get to the nub of his philosophy, nor explain why abstention from beans comprised a major part of it.

just in case you guys missed this post. I figured you must have because now everyone is talking about zero and it has already been covered.

The problem with this thread is that it started off on an unprovable assumption. Take for instance the equation: A-A=The abosolute value of "0". Zero is a symbol for nothing, so you have tried to show that nothing exist.

just in case you guys missed this post. I figured you must have because now everyone is talking about zero and it has already been covered.

The problem with this thread is that it started off on an unprovable assumption. Take for instance the equation: A-A=The abosolute value of "0". Zero is a symbol for nothing, so you have tried to show that nothing exist.

Are you asserting that "0" is not a number, if so you are trying to set mathematics back about 1350 years - does this strike you as a wise move?

Math is based on faith...

irrational numbers are undefined and thus anything based on math is unprovable...

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

No, no, no. Irrational numbers are those that can not be written in as a decimal or repeating series of decimals. Example: Square root of 2.

Square root of -1 or i is actually correctly termed an irrational number.

Complex numbers are numbers that are partially real and partially imaginary such as the number 3+2i.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"
"2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2."

Math is based on faith...

irrational numbers are undefined and thus anything based on math is unprovable...

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

No, no, no. Irrational numbers are those that can not be written in as a decimal or repeating series of decimals. Example: Square root of 2.

Square root of -1 or i is actually correctly termed an irrational number.

Complex numbers are numbers that are partially real and partially imaginary such as the number 3+2i.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"
"2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2."

Square root of -1 is the imaginary number, which had been made reference to in previous posts I didn't quote. Sorry about the confusion. I thought the point went without saying. I meant "Irrational numbers are not undefined." to be completely separate from "i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does" because imaginary numbers are even more abstract than irrational numbers, so I wanted to use them to make the point. I should have made that clearer.

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

all circles are based on a formula involving the use of Pi... the trouble is, we're not exactly sure what Pi is...

We accept that Pi is essential to the formula, and that using Pi will give us the answer -- but can we define Pi? Is it anything short of a diety? No... Pi is an unquestionable authority... Pi is both undefined and essiential

Math is a fath-based religion...

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form. That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

Pi :?: :!: Who needs it!

I am more of a fan of e. You can do anything with it, and it's so easy to get rid of if you don't like it anymore! Just ln it!

Don't know what pi is? The ancient Greece new what pi is. Start there if you want a definition of pi. To compare pi to deities shows either a disrespect for religion or ignorance when it comes to basic geometry.

You could say though, that without letters nothing would exist.

Come to think of it, if it weren't for 1's and 0's, this internet forum wouldn't even exist.

Come to think of it, if it weren't for 1's and 0's, this internet forum wouldn't even exist.
NO NS!!!! :o :shock: :shock: :o

You could say though, that without letters nothing would exist.

:?

How do you mean? The eskimos seemed to exist pretty fine without letters...

You could say though, that without letters nothing would exist.

:?

How do you mean? The eskimos seemed to exist pretty fine without letters... Seconded.

Similarly, the Mayans didn't have writing, they used glyphs instead.

:?

How do you mean? The eskimos seemed to exist pretty fine without letters...

Well.....erm.....yes.... :?

Irrational numbers are not undefined. i = the square root of -1. It just doesn't have a physical existance in the way that 1 apple does.

all circles are based on a formula involving the use of Pi... the trouble is, we're not exactly sure what Pi is...

We accept that Pi is essential to the formula, and that using Pi will give us the answer -- but can we define Pi? Is it anything short of a diety? No... Pi is an unquestionable authority... Pi is both undefined and essiential

Math is a fath-based religion...

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form. That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

Pi :?: :!: Who needs it!

I am more of a fan of e. You can do anything with it, and it's so easy to get rid of if you don't like it anymore! Just ln it!

e is the sweetest number of them all!

a few definitions i can find:

e = lim (1 + 1/n)^n , n -> infinity

or if you really want to go into it:

first define a function exp(z) , z being an element of C (complex numbers)

exp(z) = sum(1/(n!)*z^n , n going from 0 to infinity)

a few things we can say about exp(z) :
exp(0) = 1
exp(1) = sum(1/(n!), n=0..infinity) = e
exp(z1)*exp(z2) = exp(z1+z2)

using these three we can say that:

exp(x) = e^x , x an element of R

we even can even define a whole series of functions using exp(z):

cos(x) = Real(exp(i*x)) = 1/2*(exp(i*x)+exp(-i*x))
cos(x) = Im(exp(i*x)) = 1/(2*i)*(exp(i*x)-exp(-i*x))

which leads us to:

cos(x) + i*sin(x) = exp(i*x)
and
(cos(x)+i*sin(x))^n = (exp(i*x))^n = exp(i*n*x) = cos(n*x) + i*sin(n*x)

....

on Pi:

try defining Pi as:

Pi = 4 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 ...

or:

Pi = sum((-1)^n*4/(2*n+1), n=0...infinity)

this clearly defines Pi

This is post is not made of

0101010001010101010010101010100101010100101010101100101010100101001010101101010010101001010110010110 10100101010010101001010001010100100000001010101

numbers ....

Well, it's true for what we putting up now.

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form.

That is my point! Irrational numbers are undefined, thus all math is based on the unknown... Every scientific fact that is supported by a mathmatical formula is based on the unknown!




That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

Yes, but every time you double the digits of Pi and compute that into the formula you end up with a different answer... and if the digits of Pi are infinite then even the formula that defines circles changes as we learn more about it... so, are circles always changing? Do they even exist? If you believe in Pi, and also know that Pi is unknown, and also know that Pi is a fact --- then you have already accepted the unknown as fact... that is faith!

But there is my point. Just beecause we cannot completely represent something doesn't mean it's unknown or doesn't exist. We know more than enough about pi to calculate circles to a tiny, TINY fraction of a percent of accuracy which is more than enough for application in our world. Using pi we can very accurately calculate the radius of a hydrogen atom, or even smaller.

Also, the universe is infinite is size, or at least we think because we haven't found an end yet. That doesn't mean that it exists only in faith. We know that pi exists. It is part of the ratio of a circle's area when compared to it's radius. Just because we cannot completely represent it in our system of numbers doesn't mean it does not exist and that everything about our knowledge is flawed.

You seem to be confusing undefined with unknown. Something is not undefined in math when it cannot be wholely represented in our number system. It is just partially unknown. In the case of pi, to a very minute degree. Something is undefined in math when it doesn't exist (i.e., any number or equation divided by 0). Pi exists. Live with it. Your computer runs because of our understanding of things like the square root of -1 and pi. It works, it exists, and it is applicable.

Your argument that is flawed and incorrect. I rest my case as you cannot back up your claims and I can refute them.

Pi is definatly defined, see above :p

but i would like to talk about the sqrt(-1) thingy:
saying that the sqrt of -1 equals i is one of the best ways to get a C (anything lower than a 10 on 20)

the sqrt of -1 simply does not exist, however there is an identity that says i^2 = -1
this one is true, but the sqrt of -1 simply does not exist!

How much precision do you want for pi? It's an irrational number, much like the square root of 2. It cannot be represented exactly in numerical form.

That is my point! Irrational numbers are undefined, thus all math is based on the unknown... Every scientific fact that is supported by a mathmatical formula is based on the unknown!




That doesn't mean we don't understand it or how to find out more about it. Here's the first two million (http://www.msu.edu/~troytimo/Pi.txt) digits of pi to chew on. I would suggest right clicking and going to save as if you want to view it as oppose to opening it in a web browser.

Yes, but every time you double the digits of Pi and compute that into the formula you end up with a different answer... and if the digits of Pi are infinite then even the formula that defines circles changes as we learn more about it... so, are circles always changing? Do they even exist? If you believe in Pi, and also know that Pi is unknown, and also know that Pi is a fact --- then you have already accepted the unknown as fact... that is faith!

But there is my point. Just beecause we cannot completely represent something doesn't mean it's unknown or doesn't exist. We know more than enough about pi to calculate circles to a tiny, TINY fraction of a percent of accuracy which is more than enough for application in our world. Using pi we can very accurately calculate the radius of a hydrogen atom, or even smaller.

Also, the universe is infinite is size, or at least we think because we haven't found an end yet. That doesn't mean that it exists only in faith. We know that pi exists. It is part of the ratio of a circle's area when compared to it's radius. Just because we cannot completely represent it in our system of numbers doesn't mean it does not exist and that everything about our knowledge is flawed.

You seem to be confusing undefined with unknown. Something is not undefined in math when it cannot be wholely represented in our number system. It is just partially unknown. In the case of pi, to a very minute degree. Something is undefined in math when it doesn't exist (i.e., any number or equation divided by 0). Pi exists. Live with it. Your computer runs because of our understanding of things like the square root of -1 and pi. It works, it exists, and it is applicable.

Your argument that is flawed and incorrect. I rest my case as you cannot back up your claims and I can refute them.

Pi is definatly defined, see above :p

but i would like to talk about the sqrt(-1) thingy:
saying that the sqrt of -1 equals i is one of the best ways to get a C (anything lower than a 10 on 20)

the sqrt of -1 simply does not exist, however there is an identity that says i^2 = -1
this one is true, but the sqrt of -1 simply does not exist!

a small correction:

the sqrt of -1 == nothing, does not exist, nada, ...
the 2 sqrts of (-1 + 0*i) are i and -i

I just ate pi! Freeing you of math's tyrannical reign! :o

what the hell


quit talking in geek mode and talk in stoned mode

what the hell


quit talking in geek mode and talk in stoned mode

There is a difference?

what the hell


quit talking in geek mode and talk in stoned mode

There is a difference?

yeah, they're all talky numbers I want talky how the universe is nothing more than a set of equations and some conditions.

what the hell


quit talking in geek mode and talk in stoned mode

There is a difference?

yeah, they're all talky numbers I want talky how the universe is nothing more than a set of equations and some conditions.

Please enlighten me; was that geek or stoned?

what the hell


quit talking in geek mode and talk in stoned mode

There is a difference?

yeah, they're all talky numbers I want talky how the universe is nothing more than a set of equations and some conditions.

Please enlighten me; was that geek or stoned?

Estoy consaaado...