It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Einsteins last years with Godel were ignored for 50 years, UNTIL NOW! We still stand at the frontier

page: 6
87
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tormund

can you show me where we have ever in situ measured something with an infinite value?



TORMUND......Thanks for your erudite response............well stated.
quoting you here

Yes, all of the things I said. E.g., the conductivity of a superconductor is measured to be equal to infinity.
and here

So at best, it is finite infinity, aka absurdity. Science misuses the term INFINITE big time.


This I like --> (sans the term absurdity) “So at best, it is finite infinity”: especially when counterpoised to my “infinitely infinite”

As a confirmed ‘Aristotelian’ I have a little more trouble with this quote of yours posted earlier.

“No it is not. It is utterly incorrect thinking. What you are doing here is entering in absurd philosophical domain that should be kept away from science.”

Mainly because I see the separation of philosophy from science since the days of the Royal Academy to have been the cause of most of the scientific absurdity and spiritual malaise so prevalent in the world today. If anything, philosophy and science actually be should actually be RE-“joined at the hip” as in days gone by.

edit on 9-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell




posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Tormund

can you show me where we have ever in situ measured something with an infinite value?


As a confirmed ‘Aristotelian’ I have a little more trouble with this quote of yours posted earlier.

“No it is not. It is utterly incorrect thinking. What you are doing here is entering in absurd philosophical domain that should be kept away from science.”

Mainly because I see the separation of philosophy from science since the days of the Royal Academy to have been the cause of most of the scientific absurdity and spiritual malaise so prevalent in the world today. If anything, philosophy and science actually be should actually be RE-“joined at the hip” as in days gone by.

edit on 9-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell


Oh, I see the problem. Maybe it's because I'm from Croatia and English is not my first language. I really have nothing against philosophy. In fact, it seems to me there is a very small chance of a new great concept in science, especially in contemporary physics, without a philosopher inside. What I wanted to say is that he was dealing with an absurd part or section of philosophy that has nothing to do with reality. Resistivity/conductivity cannot tend to infinity for by its nature it's a finite concept. Its natural growth stops in the moment it reaches maximum. It shouldn't be expressed the way it is now, without its upper limit. Maybe the scale should start with 0 and finish with 1. Or should it be said that formula σ=1/ρ simply isn't valid when one of the parameters equals zero? The way it is now is simply unfair towards Mrs. Infinity.

This discussion reminded me of Zeno's dichotomy.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by Virtruvian
 

Perhaps, by reduction, we could approach an understanding of Pi raised to the power of Pi.
Pi equals a number slightly bigger than three. More accurately, approximately 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
Therefore Pi ^ Pi = 36.462159607207911770990826022692
Not sure what you are getting at, doesn't equal infinity.
edit on 8/7/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


I hope I am not wandering off topic in my response:
I actually wasn't "getting at" anything other than some input here with respect to the two equations that I had receved at the conclusion of a spiritual experience - i.e., a vision. No motive really.

I am having a little difficulty understanding how it is that you arrived at – Pi ^ Pi = 36.46215 from 3.14159. Please explain – Thank you.

Pi to the power of itself is infinite to the degree determined by the exponent (Pi): meaning – for me at least – that Pi to Pi is INFINITELY INFINITE, and perhaps that’s what the symbols that were presented to me in the vision were intended to represent.

We know that Pi is a transcendental number – and as such in an extension of the Lindeman Weierstrasse theorem. We also are aware of the fact that a transcendental number is a special kind of irrational number and that there are abundant proofs that all irrational numbers have infinite, non-recurring decimal representations.
This irrational number and its digits never repeat. In this sense (and in some others under discussion here) it is somewhat pathological and literally “drives people crazy” which allows it to qualify as a point of discussion in this thread.

The definition of Pi is remarkably simple. It is the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle. To a few decimal places its value is 3.14159265. The numerical value of Pi is essentially infinite, in that no repeating pattern occurs or truncates at some point. In fact, computers are known to have calculated Pi to trillions of decimal places – with still no pattern in sight.



Pi is a discrete finite number.

Pi may have an infinite number of decimal places due to its being an irrational number (it cannot be expressed as one number divided by another, except as an approximate) but that is not the same as saying that Pi = Infinity. Since Pi has a discrete and finite value, it is not infinite.

Similarly, Pi raised to the power of Pi is a discrete finite number. To claim that Pi to the power of Pi is infinite, is equally ridiculous as saying Pi is infinite.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
The Myth of Irrational Numbers 2008 pdf by James J. Asher Prize-winning math instructor

Now people will think this link is a waste of time but I understood the logical error of irrational numbers due to my music training.

The secret origin of the square root of two is from music theory which has an alternative solution to irrational numbers.

Did the Greeks Discover the Irrationals? by professors Hugly and Sayward, 1999 Philosophy Spring issue

Again people will think -- why waste your time discovering that irrational numbers are a logical error -- I mean science "works" doesn't it? (Just ignore 500 years of Western genocide and global ecological collapse).

Yep science works. haha.

Or you could read more on methodology of science - I recommend Professor David F. Noble's books exposing the secret society foundation elite control of science -- America By Design, and his M.I.T. expose book on automation and patent control, his book exposing science based out of Freemasonry - "The Religion of Technology" and his book on science as misogynist from the monasteries of Europe -- World Without Women.

O.K. so it goes back to the NeoPlatonic philosophy of John Scotus Erigena working for the Benedictine Carolingian Empire in the 9th C. But actually the problem goes back to Archytas and Plato, as math professor Luigi Borzacchini has exposed with the secret nonwestern music origins of the irrational number.

Borzacchini, Luigi - Zentralblatt MATH - ZMATH Online Database ... www.zentralblatt-math.org/portal/en/zmath/search/?q...borzacchini... Zbl 1123.01005 Borzacchini, Luigi Incommensurability, music and continuum: a cognitive approach. (English) Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 61, No. 3, 273-302 (2007). pdf review



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
chr0naut - QUOTE - "Similarly, Pi raised to the power of Pi is a discrete finite number. To claim that Pi to the power of Pi is infinite, is equally ridiculous as saying Pi is infinite."

I am prepared to concede a very minute aspect of your entire argument, but it’s for you to decide which one by reading the comments below. So I will ramble on for a bit about such things as infinity, Pi, and the endlessly infinite universe to which these concepts apply – hopefully within the context and the confines of this present conversation. And one thing I will tell you for sure – there is nothing ridiculous in them.

Let me begin by asking a few simple questions: How many place values for pi?
Answer - an infinite number of digits after the decimal point -- Pi does not have a finite value.

PI cannot be expressed exactly as any fraction including as a fraction of powers of 10. There are, potentially, an infinite number of place values in the number 'pi'.

As a concrete numerical entity it might be said that Pi symbolizes the act of becoming…….it is always in ‘potentia’

Pi is to the circle as Pi to the power of Pi is to the sphere, and here we may address the notion of an Infinite Sphere i.e., an imaginary model of/for an Infinite Universe, which might also be what the equations at the end of my vision were telling me. [see Avatar]

What about the concept of infinity?:
Infinity is a useful concept though often used unbecomingly insofar as it usually is assigned as a trait to some object or another.

Briefly speaking, nothing can be said to be infinite, since in order for something to ‘be,’ it must bear the capacity of definition and of measurability. If not then the object would exist in a perpetual state of creation and couldn't be said to ‘be’ anything at all – at least not yet.

This problem is exacerbated by the supposition that since the concept of infinity has some usefulness in mathematics that it is subject to definition. E.g., in math we understand that Pi is an infinite irrational number. Practically speaking though, this is a meaningless concept. Attributing infinity to a number is to render it incomplete, or under construction. It makes it unknowable since its value can never be established.

chr0nau - This might very well be what you were aiming for in your earlier (somewhat negative) response to me--> It is only by making the infinite ‘finite’ that we can acquire its useful value. This would mean that Pi is meaningful only when it isn't infinite. An infinite number is incomplete and unknown, and only acquires meaning when an ‘end,’ or the ultimate goal is established.

Therefore Pi is an infinite irrational number, in principle only. What this suggests is that the process of declaring something infinite, is not in the object itself, but rather in PROCESS - the steps that one may take to determine a particular value or mathematical conclusion – i.e., end point. Essentially speaking infinity is an act of measuring and/or counting only and describes the condition where there is no procedural restriction on the number of times (counting or measuring) that we might engage in.

Actually, infinity is an imaginary concept created by the ingenuity of the human mind. We can't even ‘actually’ imagine it, since that would result in a mentally repetitive process. Even when we say that a set of numbers - such as an extension of Pi is infinite, we are only considering this as a matter of principle. Numbers don't exist except in our minds. So, if we argue that an infinite set of numbers exists, then what do it really mean on the practical level if we can never actually count them?

We can recognize the absurdity of the situation by considering that the notion of an ‘infinite number’ actually means that we could have a number larger than all the particles in the universe. What would it mean to have a number (such a Pi extended) that would have the potential of being larger than all the objects in the universe that one could actually count? Or even a number larger than the time that there is available to us to count it?

Taken in the context as stated above, infinity doesn't specifically define the set of number(s), but rather defines the PROCESS by which we can go about creating or manufacturing the next number in any proposed sequence or series. It doesn't actually describe the numbers themselves; it describes the means by which, i.e., the PROCESS by which they can be (are) created.

Infinity is a very useful concept when we engage the concept to describe a PROCESS where repeatable steps, as in counting, or measurement are involved, but to consider it an actual mathematical attribute simply diminishes the object to which it is being applied down to an imaginary product of the human mind.

edit on 10-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Briefly speaking, nothing can be said to be infinite, since in order for something to ‘be,’ it must bear the capacity of definition and of measurability. If not then the object would exist in a perpetual state of creation and couldn't be said to ‘be’ anything at all – at least not yet.


I would disagree with you on this one. Nothing you see around you in the Universe can have a finite definition nor measurement. The only "material" things that can be said to be finite are the ones created in our minds. Just think about it. Whatever you choose to measure you can always be more precise every single time you try to do it again, to infinity. And you can always find a better definition than the one you already have. Matter is constantly changing, of course, NOTHING is in state of BEING, EVERYTHING IS BECOMING. This is the ultimate truth of existence. Just look around you, everything is changing with time. Every scientist should bear this in mind all the time.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tormund

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Briefly speaking, nothing can be said to be infinite, since in order for something to ‘be,’ it must bear the capacity of definition and of measurability. If not then the object would exist in a perpetual state of creation and couldn't be said to ‘be’ anything at all – at least not yet.


I would disagree with you on this one. Nothing you see around you in the Universe can have a finite definition nor measurement. The only "material" things that can be said to be finite are the ones created in our minds. Just think about it. Whatever you choose to measure you can always be more precise every single time you try to do it again, to infinity. And you can always find a better definition than the one you already have. Matter is constantly changing, of course, NOTHING is in state of BEING, EVERYTHING IS BECOMING. This is the ultimate truth of existence. Just look around you, everything is changing with time. Every scientist should bear this in mind all the time.


I'm listening - rather intently too. I think this thread has triggered something in many of us here even to the point of someone having made mention of Zeno's paradox, which I find intriguing mainly because it hearkens back to the Greeks. My 'Aristotelian' manner is quite appreciative of that idea particularly when considering the value of beholding the beauty of nature, and the intuitive capacity of the human mind as they direct our intellect towards a proper notion of conceptualizing and perceiving the world around us. Therefore - the summoning of the Greeks will surely lead us in the right direction - I think!

Upon reading the very first post in this thread I was immediately reminded of a quote I once coined while studying the ancient philosophers - "Heraclitus and Parmenides were standing in the same river," *** and I'm sure there are some (several in fact) here who would appreciate the gist of that remark, not to mention the hidden contradictions that it conveys: almost as though it were an oxymoron. I will dig out my notes on that subject and make a post on it here soon enough.

Also - While reading through your most recent comments I am also reminded of the conundrum that refers us to the paradoxical question that always reminded me of the difficulties of Pi and the quest for a solution. I.e., how many times must we "slice a magnet" before we arrive at the elusive - yet all so hypothetical "Monopole"? - something which I had thought - rather naively - was an original idea and/or image


*** - For Parmenides nothing changes, and for Heraclitus everything changes.
Heraclitus boldly procaimed that "You can't step into the same river twice."

Parmenides equally as boldly proclaimed that change of any kind is impossible, and so denies the reality of change.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
still reading. ty op. this will bookmark for me



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

High anxieties . The mathematics of chaos 1.7

Excellent BBC4's: "Documentary which looks at how developments in mathematics over the past 40 years have completely changed our understanding of the fundamental nature of the world we live in.
As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths."

We need to come to the conclusion that the definite sciences that were developed in the 1950-1970's were strongly misguided.

We will be ok in the end. We just need to start caring for each other more than we care for our bank balance.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ


I'll make a declarative statement...infinity is a truth. And qualify it with the simple notion that
you can always add one to the sum, or that you can always divide a sum by one half. That is
proof of a mathematical infinity....but I could be wrong


Just to bite at this, infinity is not a truth, more a concept used in mathematical theory, and maths can never give you truth as stated above by Godels incompleteness theorem. In the real world of science it bears absolutely no relation to anything the scientific method has ever discovered, or likely ever will. We have never found a ruler of infinite length, a star of infinite mass, a singularity of infinite density, or for that matter, science has never even discovered a singularity. Science inferes that such things may exist as if they do this theory will work out very easily; but thats more showing a failing in our current understating of the phenomenon and theory, than revealing some sort of deeper truth about what we have merely inferred has to exist in the first place.

The reason being is that we invented a singularity. Its a point on a piece of paper. It has no size, no properties, it just has locality. In relation to infinity and maths we will never find an infinite number but there are certain advanced ways that the concept of an infinite number can be used to produce logical conclusions (thought some dispute this
)

This might scramble your brain
Sorry.

Infinity plus one is infinity.
Half of infinity is infi in terms of letters. But half of an infinite number is still infinite.

Want to see you brain explode? :p

Watch this, its supoosed to be a simpler explnation on the nature of infinity for people that find it easier to learn maths by pictures and real world object exmaples. Starts at 13:30.


Be be honest, it confused the # out of me half the time too for a long while.
edit on 7-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)


Just watched this documentary again (watched it a couple of months ago as well) because your thread reminded me of it. So I came back to post the documentary here but when I read on I saw you'd already posted it. Just wanted to say I think it's amazing, puzzling and very very interesting. Thanks for writing all of this down!!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Space-Time Crystals Form In Ion Trap Space-time crystals are being designed for computers by cooling an ion ring to its ground state of lowest quantum energy, which is possible in the near future, says Xiang Zhang in Newscientist that a computer could outlive the universe, and in Arxiv paper "Space-Time Crystals of Trapped Ions". Electrons continously rotate without resistance friction-free in a superconductive ring near absolute zero serving as a time crystal if electrons could be made to flow separately rather than in a continous stream, ensuring a fractal repeating pattern. An ion trap holds charged particles in place using an electric field that causes the ions to form a ring-shaped crystal. Extremely cold ions repel each other by Coulomb repulsion, and applying a weak static magnetic field causes the ions to rotate forever, even when the electric and magnetic field stops. The space-time crystal they say could outlive the universe, if a cold death entirely depleted the universe of energy. Longo has shown that the universe began or was born spinning on a rotation axis. Galaxies model as superconductors of electricity by not using fake black hole gravity galaxy cores. Hydrogen as H6 is a superconductor of friction-free electricity that mimics the best known electrical conductors: carbon nanotubes as graphene, and silicon as silicene. H6 in an ion trap could spin electrons for a space-time crystal. These are three of the most common atoms in the universe having different transitional forms and exotic superstates by electromagnetic phenomena, providing proof of an EM universe, with ideas far surpassing believed gravitational fiction of the big-bang 14.3 billion years ago. Time crystals refute the age of the universe, and the big-bang theory. Our solar system bubble may be in a ground state, and supernovas display excited states or quantum jumps like a giant fractal atom that's becoming ionized and releasing particles and magnetic energy.


So the above new blogspot has the hypertext links here

Pretty timely to this thread! Amazing.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong


Could you (or someome else) please tell me how to officially post off site content so that this kind of a blue border surrounds the body of text?



Nevva mine..............I figured it out.......EX Text .....thanks anyhow
edit on 11-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
So the above new blogspot has the hypertext links here


From the above link:


Metamaterial Black Holes Plasmons Galaxies Holograms Cosmic Filaments

Nanoscale Universe plasma cosmology lattice superstates graphenes metamaterials self-assemble align attach filaments for cosmic phenomena like protostars, galaxies, black holes. Dusty plasma filaments connect galaxies into galaxy clusters, superclusters, hyperclusters...forming the fractal cosmic web filamentary structure. Three dimensional intersecting cosmic cellular filaments organize em fields plasmons carbon nanotubes ribosomes neurons quasicrystals quantum dots HOLOGRAMS.


Fulllotus,

All the above are simply tags for the blog article?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Space-time crystals are being designed for computers by cooling an ion ring to its ground state of lowest quantum energy, which is possible in the near future, says Xiang Zhang


Which is it - now, or the possible future?
edit on 07/11/12 by Mary Rose because: Fix tag



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


On cue... Great find!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ


I'll make a declarative statement...infinity is a truth. And qualify it with the simple notion that
you can always add one to the sum, or that you can always divide a sum by one half. That is
proof of a mathematical infinity....but I could be wrong


Just to bite at this, infinity is not a truth, more a concept used in mathematical theory, and maths can never give you truth as stated above by Godels incompleteness theorem. In the real world of science it bears absolutely no relation to anything the scientific method has ever discovered, or likely ever will. We have never found a ruler of infinite length, a star of infinite mass, a singularity of infinite density, or for that matter, science has never even discovered a singularity. Science inferes that such things may exist as if they do this theory will work out very easily; but thats more showing a failing in our current understating of the phenomenon and theory, than revealing some sort of deeper truth about what we have merely inferred has to exist in the first place.

The reason being is that we invented a singularity. Its a point on a piece of paper. It has no size, no properties, it just has locality. In relation to infinity and maths we will never find an infinite number but there are certain advanced ways that the concept of an infinite number can be used to produce logical conclusions (thought some dispute this
)

This might scramble your brain
Sorry.

Infinity plus one is infinity.
Half of infinity is infi in terms of letters. But half of an infinite number is still infinite.

Want to see you brain explode? :p

Watch this, its supoosed to be a simpler explnation on the nature of infinity for people that find it easier to learn maths by pictures and real world object exmaples. Starts at 13:30.


Be be honest, it confused the # out of me half the time too for a long while.
edit on 7-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)


That's because there is no such thing as an infinite number. Infinite is a series of numbers that doesn't stop.

There will never be an object or measurable metric that is indeed infinite, with one exception. The expansion of the universe.

A number is a container revealing the count therein, such as "7". Infinite is not a container, it's a series of containers, such as "1,2,3,4,5,6,7...." that does not stop.

The idea of infinite, is perpetuity. This is why you can't do math with infinites. If the sum is always expanding, then so is your answer. If you are attempting to add an infinite with an infinite, then your answer becomes exponential.

I.E.

Your sum ends up expanding faster and faster and faster.

How can one solve a math problem when the problem is constantly changing at a faster and faster rate?

The answer is you can't, you WILL get stuck in a loop, because infinite doesn't stop. That IS what infinite is.

I think those that try to do infinite maths don't truly understand what it means to be infinite.

Also, Infinite IS a truth... You can always make a number bigger, always. That's not a concept.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Originally posted by Tormund

Originally posted by Vitruvian


"Heraclitus and Parmenides were standing in the same river," *** and I'm sure there are some (several in fact) here who would appreciate the gist of that remark, not to mention the hidden contradictions that it conveys: almost as though it were an oxymoron. I will dig out my notes on that subject and make a post on it here soon enough.


And how about both of them being right?

The Universe is infinite for it is impossible to imagine it not to be. In our mind there is always more, and since our imagination is part of it, the Universe is endless. When I say The Universe, I mean everything that is, everything that was and ever will be.

Now, the Universe has to be "symmetrical" or better - in balance, for everything has its opposite, not because Heraclitus said it, but because in the Infinite Universe there always has to be something identical but opposite; we can imagine it, and everything we imagine has to exist somewhere in the Infinity; otherwise it wouldn't be The Infinity.

So, if we accept the Universe as a (Infinite) Whole to be in equilibrium eternally, then we understand its fundamental characteristic, and know that, despite fluctuations of countless ever changing components it is made off which are coming into equilibrium all the time (because of law of action and reaction; reaction is immediate with no delay, and everything that is becoming in the Universe causes a number of reactions which summarized equal initial action), the Universe as The Infinite Whole cannot change. For it already is everything it possibly could be.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Tormund because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Tormund........quote "And how about both of them being right?"


Yes - that is what I had in mind when I coined the phrase: "Heraclitus and Parmenides were standing in the same river." It ocurred to me that they were saying essentially the same thing - they just went about it in their own unique way.........

I enjoyed your response and see nothing un-agreeable in it, but I will have to ponder it a little further before I answer it. Thank you..........

This is also the most enjoyable thread I have participated in since coming online.........

edit on 11-7-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Let me begin by asking a few simple questions: How many place values for pi?
Answer - an infinite number of digits after the decimal point -- Pi does not have a finite value.


It DOES have a finite value. There's nothing wrong with having an infinite number of digits--all numbers do!
E.g.,
1 = 1.00000000....
1/2 = 0.5000000....
1/3 = 0.3333333....
square root (2) = 1.41421356....
pi = 3.14159265....
And that's fine, there's no problem with this.



PI cannot be expressed exactly as any fraction including as a fraction of powers of 10.


Pi can't be expressed as any fraction of two WHOLE NUMBERS. Neither can the square root of two, or most other numbers. That's fine, no one said a number had to be a ratio of two integers.



Practically speaking though, this is a meaningless concept. Attributing infinity to a number is to render it incomplete, or under construction. It makes it unknowable since its value can never be established.


Not at all. Pi is perfectly knowable. There are many formulas which can be used to calculate as many digits of it as you like. It has many exact properties known, and having an infinite number of digits is no obstacle to this.


Actually, infinity is an imaginary concept created by the ingenuity of the human mind. We can't even ‘actually’ imagine it


Maybe you can't, but plenty of mathematicians and scientists can.

Look, it's very simple. Let me define pi raised to the pi power iteratively.

pi = 3.14159... = 3 + 0.1 + 0.04 + 0.001 + 0.0005 + 0.00009 + ... (just like a digit expansion in powers of ten)

Then,
pi^pi = pi^(3 + 0.1 + 0.04 + 0.001 + 0.0005 + 0.00009)
using the rules of exponents,
pi^pi = pi^3 * pi^0.1 * pi^0.04 * pi^0.001 * pi^0.0005 * pi^0.00009 * ...

Now, this is easy,
pi^3 = pi*pi*pi

To find pi^.1 we use the rules of exponents again:
(pi^.1)^10 = pi^(.1 * 10) = pi^1 = pi.
So, find a number that, when raised to the tenth power, is pi.

Similarly for all the others, then multiply them together.

Note that each term gets smaller:
3
0.1
0.04
0.001
0.0005
0.00009
.......
.......

And a number raised to a small power is close to 1, so eventually all the numbers in the product
pi^pi = pi^3 * pi^0.1 * pi^0.04 * pi^0.001 * pi^0.0005 * pi^0.00009 * ...
get closer and closer to one and thus contribute less and less each time.

You can easily find:
pi^3 = 31.0062766....
pi^.1 = 1.1212823....
pi^.04 = 1.046853...
pi^.001 = 1.00114538....
pi^.0005 = 1.0005725...
pi^.00009 = 1.0001030...

so
pi^pi = (31.0062766...) * (1.1212823...) * (1.046853...) * ...
pi^pi = 36.46215960....

Easy! And not infinity.

Note that this process is identical for whole numbers, but for them, you eventually get a bunch of x^0 = 1 terms. It's also identical for fractions, or other irrational numbers.

It's also grade-school math. Not difficult.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Wait, what? You're saying that all numbers have an infinite amount of numbers in them? And your example is 1.0000000000.....?

mmmkay.
Interesting



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join