Re: A SIMPLE CHALLENGE that you great Mathematicians won't answer...

On Feb 14, 11:56 am, Dustan <DustanGro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:52 pm, finite guy <adamle...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for the decent reply.
Here we go again...

And irrelevant to the description of the circle. All that's needed to
describe a circle is:
x^2 + y^2 = r^2

Gee, I thought x and y were axial.
Are you saying they are not?

Well, when you look at it that way... Oh crap, this really does have
no bearing on reality whatsoever. Errr... That was what you meant,
right? Even though it's not true; calculus is an important application
in physics.

Really...
what do "as x -> ∞" mean then... ?
and the inverse of that... ?

Ever heard of fractals? They are infinite in complexity but finite in
size. They're mathematical concepts, NOT reality. Reality can only
represent them to a certain extent. But the mathematical concept still
exists. The fact that I'm talking about it proves that.

Fractals are a scaling issue.
And they go on infinitly reducing... according to the mathematical
concept?
What if you 'start' at the minimum and fractal ' upwards'... to a
finite degree?
Gee, same thing happens...

Who said that? I certainly don't believe it.

Fair enough - it was a generalisation.
Generally, we all use them... :-)
So you believe with certainty that space is finite - 'inward' and
'outward'?

By definition.

Your errant definitions are the problem...
that's what I have been saying.
Did you miss that?

You gotta start somewhere, otherwise you'll get nowhere. In this case,
we're starting at the concept of points and sets of points, ie shapes
(those sets, by the way, are, in the vast majority of cases,
INFINITE).

The infinite DOESN"T START ANYWHERE or finish...
Without realising it you are muddling finite and infinite... again...
If I said, "(those sets, by the way, are, in the vast majority of
cases, BLUE)", you would critisize.
But 'blue' is as much a 'number' as infinite.
Infinity is not a number.
Would COW also be as appropriate a description as infinite... ?

Mathematically impossible with the most commonly accepted premises.

Because you futilely try to infinitise the finite...
Your premise holds no promise... :-)

Do you even accept the existence of real numbers?

Yes, really...
Both rational and irrational ones.
They shouldn't try to be put on the same number line though.
That's been discussed previously.
I think it was 'lwas?' who pointed out that that is correct.

Coincidentally, points are also a mathematical concept.

So is a line, a plane, a cube, etc.
Your point being... ?

For a good reason. In case you haven't noticed, math has a tendency to
go on tangents completely unrelated to reality.

Yeah, and they are presumably based on the fundamentals... 1, 2, 3...
Why do they try to negate the fundamentals?
Oh, philosophy is why... not mathematics.
True... ?

No, sir, YOU are bound by reality. You're reality, to be exact, which
exists only in your head.

Yes, sir. I am bound by reality as best I understand it.
But YOU are proudly not bound by reality...
Haven't you already said that... ?

And perpendicular, don't forget perpendicular.

I didn't. But thanks anyway.

On paper, yes. On your graphing calculator, yes. Conceptually, yes.
Mathematically, no, the actual relation (be it a line or a circle or a
parabola or anything else) is not composed of successive points. If it
were, then there would be a finite number of points. Which there
isn't.

So, once again, you confirm your belief that finite is infinite...
This is the problem...
Is that getting through... ?

Ummm... What?

Sounded simple. Read it again.

Nope.

There is always hope...

What misconceptions? You mean of reality? Who claimed that any of this
had anything to do with reality?

The one we have been discussing... oops, you can't hear it.
Infinitising the finite and flying off into non-reality.
The real question is:
Are YOU interested in reality since the foundations are built upon
it... ?

Because that's how it works out. You can actually prove the theorem,
you know.

Ha, ha, ha...
Why 'squares' was the question.
You are thinking that it is a 'square' relationship.
It isn't - it is an 'area' relationship, silly.
Is proved... is good... I agree.
It still has a misconception... squares...
Circle area is pi*r^2.
Gosh, that's not a square... is it?

Irrelevant and incorrect. The existence of Pythagorean triples has no
bearing on the truth of the Pythagorean theorem.

Did I mention triplets?
The reason I mentioned Fermat is that a 'cube' is an extended
'square'.
And Fermat is correct - meaning that there is a problem for you to go
from (1,1,1) to (2,2,2).
Thanks for the valid comment though.
BUT 'squares' have no bearing on the truth of the PT... do they... ?

Pythagorean <=> E=mc^2??? You're connecting this guy to someone over 2
millennia ahead of his time???

Come on.. this is a dumb statement...
Of course they are connected.
Bear in mind that Pythagoras was way ahead of BOTH YOU AND ME.
Are you superior to Pythagoras such that you might call him dumb-ass?
I think not...

I'm not going to argue with you anymore; it's obvious to me that
you're not about to give up on your misconceptions. The fact that I
have had a complete, logical and valid response to every one of your
misconceptions doesn't seem to deter you.

My misconceptions are actually 're-conceptions'...
No one thinks that their held opinion is illogical or invalid.
As you can see above, you misconceive my misconceptions... :-)

Hopefully, you will reply.

If you do reply, please tell me why E=mc^2 is a planar equation in
triangular form.

Regards.
Adam Lewis.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple Question and the philosophy of infinity
    ... "Infinite sum." ... To define them would be to make math circular or to go find ... Mathematics just _happens_ to sometimes overlap natural reality as we ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation
    ... infinite or finitely unbounded. ... Physical theories, like quantum theory, are ideas about how reality works. ... the mathematics are not physical reality. ... of physics or outside the universe. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Turing Machines and Physical Computation
    ... infinite or finitely unbounded. ... Physical theories, like quantum theory, are ideas about how reality works. ... the mathematics are not physical reality. ... of physics or outside the universe. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • PANORAMARE
    ... part of mathematics. ... The flat earth is a good approximation in your immediate ... In reality there are no infinite sets. ... An earth-centric solar system is overly complicated, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Here's a way to visualize countable ordinals that might ... The point 1 is not included unless you allow infinite n, ... > Infinite sets of naturals *don't* have a largest element. ... But that isn't mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)