Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mathematics Is Wrong. Here's Why.

page: 19
39
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
just wondering---how much of our math and science is colored by our perceptions and senses. our unit of distance is based on somebody's foot a couple of thousand years ago. So what really is a mile? a light year? time? what if there are totally different realities beyond our perceptions. I think there are probably fewer absolutes than we have been led to believe. are we capable of getting outside ourselves?




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Your point makes perfect sense to me. No doubt about that.
I believe it will be possible to make more correct calculations when more dimensions are taken into the aspect.

The minds of many mathematicians are most certainly locked into the 3D way of thinking.
What is infinity in the 3D world may not be infinity in the higher dimensions.
If mathematics is the universal language, I strongly doubt that humans have the slightest grasp of how it really works.



Really? They're locked into 3D thinking? What about n-dimensional space and non-Euclidean geometry?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



Mathematic understanding is flawed due to its one and only uncertainty that is to divide any number(n) by zero. In that operation, the answer is determined as undefined.



Up to now, magnetic monopoles have been the stuff of speculation. Physicist Paul Dirac conjectured that such monopoles might exist at the ends of magnetic strings. But these monopoles had never actually been observed in real materials.

Until now. The German research team looked for these monopoles in the material dysprosium titanate. They chose this stuff for its internal structure;
io9.com...
edit on 1-9-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)

on the second thought - can they be... thrusted? for that...?
edit on 1-9-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Your point makes perfect sense to me. No doubt about that.
I believe it will be possible to make more correct calculations when more dimensions are taken into the aspect.

The minds of many mathematicians are most certainly locked into the 3D way of thinking.
What is infinity in the 3D world may not be infinity in the higher dimensions.
If mathematics is the universal language, I strongly doubt that humans have the slightest grasp of how it really works.



Really? They're locked into 3D thinking? What about n-dimensional space and non-Euclidean geometry?



Ok first of I was locked into stupid-mode when I wrote it, I meant 4D, since most physics and mathematics of today of course uses time as well, Minkowski Space.
May I point out that you are right, there are some people thinking in different layers, but still, are not those layers perceived in 4 dimensions?

N-dimensonal space can of course be as many dimensions as you like.
In how many dimensions can you use Hyperbolic and Elliptic geometry?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by quackers
 





An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.


A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.






I agree.
an absolute vacuum would most definitely still contain "something".
What happens if you have a glass container with this "absolute vacuum" inside, and you shine a light at it?
Then this "absolute vacuum" would contain photons.
Or just the fact that you were able to observe this "absolute vacuum" with your eyes... The same thing..

What about the fact that our entire "nothingness" probably is made up of "something" (M-Theory). How does that work with an "absolute vacuum" that contains absolutely nothing?
In what dimensions should this "absolute vacuum" be measured in? Only 3? Aha, so only the dimensions that humans can perceive counts? But should not an "absolute vacuum" be absolute in all dimensions? How else can it be "absolute"?

So the only way to even get close to an "absolute vacuum" would be not monitor it in any way, in any dimension? But how do you then know?
Some kind of Erwin Schrödinger version comes to mind.
edit on 31-8-2011 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)



First i have to say something about how you view this.

-You can not view a vacuum inside a glass to understand this. You have to view the glass within a vacuum.
Than you can ask you self: How did it get there? It would get there by a very long process.

If you view a vacuum from this angle, you will figure out that a vacuum have all the dimensions. Because the vacuum have created all the particles within it self.
"The dimensions we can observe". "The glass you mention" Everything that exists as particles and make up all the different physical dimensions. All this must exist inside the vacuum. Nothing can exist out side of the absolute vacuum.

Nothing can exist out side the absolute vacuum, because the absolute vacuum can not create something larger or stronger than it self. So everything you view must exist within the vacuum.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by quackers
 





An absolute vacuum would however contain zero particles (perfect). I said zero would be as valid as infinity, not that it was a valid infinity.


A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.






I agree.
an absolute vacuum would most definitely still contain "something".
What happens if you have a glass container with this "absolute vacuum" inside, and you shine a light at it?
Then this "absolute vacuum" would contain photons.
Or just the fact that you were able to observe this "absolute vacuum" with your eyes... The same thing..

What about the fact that our entire "nothingness" probably is made up of "something" (M-Theory). How does that work with an "absolute vacuum" that contains absolutely nothing?
In what dimensions should this "absolute vacuum" be measured in? Only 3? Aha, so only the dimensions that humans can perceive counts? But should not an "absolute vacuum" be absolute in all dimensions? How else can it be "absolute"?

So the only way to even get close to an "absolute vacuum" would be not monitor it in any way, in any dimension? But how do you then know?
Some kind of Erwin Schrödinger version comes to mind.
edit on 31-8-2011 by LiberalSceptic because: (no reason given)



First i have to say something about how you view this.

-You can not view a vacuum inside a glass to understand this. You have to view the glass within a vacuum.
Than you can ask you self: How did it get there? It would get there by a very long process.

If you view a vacuum from this angle, you will figure out that a vacuum have all the dimensions. Because the vacuum have created all the particles within it self.
"The dimensions we can observe". "The glass you mention" Everything that exists as particles and make up all the different physical dimensions. All this must exist inside the vacuum. Nothing can exist out side of the absolute vacuum.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



Ah ok. Thanks for the heads up. I see your point.
So you mean that this "absolute vacuum" is a nothingness that can not exist within anything?
In that case an "absolute vacuum" could not exist in our universe, since there would be something outside it?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 






Ah ok. Thanks for the heads up. I see your point.
So you mean that this "absolute vacuum" is a nothingness that can not exist within anything?
In that case an "absolute vacuum" could not exist in our universe, since there would be something outside it?


Correct;
Our total existing universes and all the existing particles must exist inside the vacuum.
The vacuum created all the particles that formed our existence.

We can not create a absolute vacuum within our universe because the force of finite mass-energy is to strong. To be able to create a absolute vacuum within our universe we would need to create a force that is greater than the absolute vacuum, and that is not possible. Because we must use the existing particles to create this force. And non of the particles that exist are greater than the vacuum that created it.

Again to understand this. You can draw a dot on a piece of paper. The dot is the particle/our universe, everything else surrounding the particle/our universe is the vacuum.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 






Ah ok. Thanks for the heads up. I see your point.
So you mean that this "absolute vacuum" is a nothingness that can not exist within anything?
In that case an "absolute vacuum" could not exist in our universe, since there would be something outside it?


Correct;
Our total existing universes and all the existing particles must exist inside the vacuum.
The vacuum created all the particles that formed our existence.

We can not create a absolute vacuum within our universe because the force of finite mass-energy is to strong. To be able to create a absolute vacuum within our universe we would need to create a force that is greater than the absolute vacuum, and that is not possible. Because we must use the existing particles to create this force. And non of the particles that exist are greater than the vacuum that created it.

Again to understand this. You can draw a dot on a piece of paper. The dot is the particle/our universe, everything else surrounding the particle/our universe is the vacuum.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



Very good and simple explanation.
To "pull" something one would need a bigger counter weight. In this case impossible.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Well, math has generalized higher dimensions. Merely giving a philosophical argument does not prove that infinity is 0. They're more like complete opposites. They aren't even both numbers. Infinite is a process but zero is a number. Not specifically to you, but to to sophist arguments most people are using.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
What about Rodin math?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Well, math has generalized higher dimensions. Merely giving a philosophical argument does not prove that infinity is 0. They're more like complete opposites. They aren't even both numbers. Infinite is a process but zero is a number. Not specifically to you, but to to sophist arguments most people are using.



Personally I am not even close to a mathexpert, I am not even the slightest good at it. Just find it interesting and wish that I new more. But can not the philosophic part of it open some locked doors as well?
One can stare blind on numbers, but philosophy can make the mind go different and interesting ways.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorVeritas
What about Rodin math?

In short, Rodin 'math' is a crock of ****.

2nd line.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.



Cocktail-philosophers and narrow-minded mathematicians
Everything is relative. Though I do really like the word cocktail-philosophers, ha ha you are funny.
I am not arguing with your point, I only say that I can see further than it.
And all this "you can not", "this is impossible" and "that is not allowed". Ok, math is the "truth", math is the perfect "language" etc etc. But based on humans conception of what should be.
There are no such thing as; impossible.

As for my own mathematical education, it was absolutely great and with excellent options. The thing that was the faulty factor in the equation was I.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.



If a vacuum contained particles then it would not be an absolute vacuum. Now, as an absolute vacuum is only possible in theory, it remains a possibility untill disproven. That being the case, the existance of zero is required to represent this possibility. No?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.



Cocktail-philosophers and narrow-minded mathematicians
Everything is relative. Though I do really like the word cocktail-philosophers, ha ha you are funny.
I am not arguing with your point, I only say that I can see further than it.
And all this "you can not", "this is impossible" and "that is not allowed". Ok, math is the "truth", math is the perfect "language" etc etc. But based on humans conception of what should be.
There are no such thing as; impossible.

As for my own mathematical education, it was absolutely great and with excellent options. The thing that was the faulty factor in the equation was I.


Actually you can prove something is logically impossible given premises. It's proof by contradiction a number is an object with certain basic properties. If we agree with these properties we can prove some results are logically absurd. Math is not like science where it is inductive, but it is deductive. Math is heavily logical, even more so than philosophy.

Proof that division by 0 is logically impossible

Let us assume a does not equal b.

Let us agree that any number added 0 times is 0. If you count something no times you haven't counted anything.

Hence 0*a = 0

0*b = 0

But then 0*b = 0*a.

Dividing by 0, we get a = b.

But by our hypotheses a does not equal b. Hence division by 0 is logically impossible given our premises.

It's the same logical rule as reductio ad absurdum of philosophy, but with less filler. In fact the logic taught in philosophy is a subset of mathematical logic. Normal philosophers, okay, they know the difference between logical and illogical, but cocktail philosophers are ones just using sophistry to beg the question.

If you are arguing that math should be illogical and mystical, well, the laws of physics would not be applicable to the real world. You could argue left is right, up is down, and opposites are the same. Someone could argue nine is a sacred number, others seventeen and so forth. But we see a logical consistency to the world.
edit on 1-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers

Originally posted by spy66

A absolute vacuum would not contain "zero" particles. If the vacuum can form specific particles, the properties needed to form the particles must be present within the vacuum. Particles are properties of the vacuum.



If a vacuum contained particles then it would not be an absolute vacuum. Now, as an absolute vacuum is only possible in theory, it remains a possibility untill disproven. That being the case, the existance of zero is required to represent this possibility. No?



If a vacuum contain particles the vacuum would not change, it would still be a absolute vacuum with particles.

You have a absolute vacuum with particles. That is not impossible. We can create a vacuum with less particles cant we?

Its just that we can not create a absolute vacuum, because we dont have the energy/force to create it. No even with all the particles in existence could we use them to create a absolute vacuum.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by LiberalSceptic

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


Cocktail philosophers rarely have any idea what they are talking about when it comes to mathematics and mathematical sciences. The reason you cannot divide by zero is because you can claim any number is equal to any other number when using the property that 0*a=0 for any number a. Infinity in calculus is actually taking the limit as a number increases beyond bound. You cannot divide by these, but you can divide by numbers with these limits, because the limit approaching 0 is not the same thing as the number being 0. Without a rigorous understanding of mathematics how can people presume to explain why it's wrong? All this is showing is that math education in general is terrible.



Cocktail-philosophers and narrow-minded mathematicians
Everything is relative. Though I do really like the word cocktail-philosophers, ha ha you are funny.
I am not arguing with your point, I only say that I can see further than it.
And all this "you can not", "this is impossible" and "that is not allowed". Ok, math is the "truth", math is the perfect "language" etc etc. But based on humans conception of what should be.
There are no such thing as; impossible.

As for my own mathematical education, it was absolutely great and with excellent options. The thing that was the faulty factor in the equation was I.


Actually you can prove something is logically impossible given premises. It's proof by contradiction a number is an object with certain basic properties. If we agree with these properties we can prove some results are logically absurd. Math is not like science where it is inductive, but it is deductive. Math is heavily logical, even more so than philosophy.

Proof that division by 0 is logically impossible

Let us assume a does not equal b.

Let us agree that any number added 0 times is 0. If you count something no times you haven't counted anything.

Hence 0*a = 0

0*b = 0

But then 0*b = 0*a.

Dividing by 0, we get a = b.

But by our hypotheses a does not equal b. Hence division by 0 is logically impossible given our premises.

It's the same logical rule as reductio ad absurdum of philosophy, but with less filler. In fact the logic taught in philosophy is a subset of mathematical logic. Normal philosophers, okay, they know the difference between logical and illogical, but cocktail philosophers are ones just using sophistry to beg the question.

If you are arguing that math should be illogical and mystical, well, the laws of physics would not be applicable to the real world. You could argue left is right, up is down, and opposites are the same. Someone could argue nine is a sacred number, others seventeen and so forth. But we see a logical consistency to the world.
edit on 1-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



I am arguing (now) about the fact that you do not know everything there is to know about math.
So how do you then know that you are right about what you know?
You are saying that "people without rigorous understanding about mathematics should not say anything about it". at least that is how I interpret you. Correct me if I am wrong about that.
But whom sets the standard for the amount of knowledge needed before one is allowed to question mathematics?
You want to live in your "safe" little world of given and unchangeable laws and facts.
Welcome into my CrAzY wOrLd instead!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


He is absolutely right based on his axioms or basic assumptions.
In any logic system you come up with your axioms first. Things you assume to be true. Then your rules then you logically deduce things from there.

If you want to change his basic assumptions and create your own (system of logic), i mean (formal system), go for it. Just as valid.
edit on 1-9-2011 by PaulMcCartney because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by LiberalSceptic
 


*sigh*

The arguments given in this topic are not logical, it's just a lot of sophistry and begging the question. A modicum of knowledge on the given subject matter would show this. You can't even argue that zero and infinity are the same things since they aren't even the same object or inherit the same properties. If they were our physicals laws would not function at all.

But you know what, you don't even exist, I am all that exists in this universe, and you, my play things, will cease to be. I hope you accept solipsism as equally valid too, my imaginary friend.
edit on 1-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join