dkv Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 You've note defined 'number' still, yet keep talking about them as they have some well known definition that you're using. REP: Hope the reply gives you a more concrete answer to the actual status of Infinity. ============================================== A group is a group is a group. There are simpler algebraic objects, and more complicated ones. It is not 'incomplete' as a definition. REP: It is incomplete in the sense I explained above.. But still we have some more modifications to be made.
matt grime Posted February 11, 2006 Posted February 11, 2006 What is meant by an Abstract Science?Is Maths really an Observer Independent Science? I am going to prove it otherwise. You cannot prove a theory that is entirely subjective. Nor did you even explain what any of those terms actually mean' date=' ie what makes something observer independent or otherwise. Try giving a reference where someone actually claims that maths is observer independent as a science. Why do we come out of Infinity and trust our understanding of it is right? If by 'we' you mean the general public and the belief that somehow mathematical things are 'real' then they don't. However, in maths, the symbol [math]\infty[/math] and its uses, as well as other things with the label infinity are prefectly well understood as 'not finite'. It has different context dependent meanings, as do many words and symbols. Sorry, you've stepped fully into the realm of crackpottery, or at least philosophy. I won't respond to the rest of the post. It is not mathematics. Try the speculations section. Ok, I admit, crackpottery is a tad harsh, but it has the hall marks of many a mathematical pet theory that has no relation to mathematics. Perhaps you're just posting in the wrong place.
dkv Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 You are contradicting your own statements... If by 'we' you mean the general public and the belief that somehow mathematical things are 'real' then they don't. REP: Well I say the entire Mathematics comes out of Subjective Reasoning. Somewhere in the complexity of problems we like to think that we are inventing a pure Mathematical Approach when we are simply trying to model the actual Real World. The incompleteness comes as a consequence of partially correct assumptions, the rest as we know becomes a normal expansion of binary thought process.(Which we can call Objective) But the question is if the assumptions are false how can it get related to the Real World. The answer is beyond Binary. Simply understand that even if the base assumptions are partially true we should still have the Real link .. directly proportional the degree of truth involved in the creation. For example Pi which comes out of perfect circle doesnt find any respect in Nature. But at the same time near circle scenarios are common.There is nothing wrong with Nature .. it is the Maths which made some partially correct assumptions due to its subjective Nature. ================================================= Using Infinite Logical Bus as an example I tried to explain a simple fact that : Infinity doesnt make any sense as an iterative process in real world..(as a Noun you dont like nor do I) Maths doesnt recognize this .. I know but so was parallel law well established before it led to the discovery of a new branch within Maths.. Try putting in some logical questions to disprove me.
matt grime Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Using Infinite Logical Bus as an example I tried to explain a simple fact that : Infinity doesnt make any sense as an iterative process in real world... Try putting in some logical questions to disprove me. what on earth is an interative process? if you don't define your terms properly they cannot be 'disproven' or 'proven'. they just make no sense. i will not even attempt to disprove that since I do not think 'infinity is an interative process', nor do i think its negation is true since i have no idea what that even means. point out one person that has said infinity is an interative process. or a process fullstop. i can tell you how infinity is used in maths (many ways) and i will keep repeating that it is merely a short hand to indicate 'not finite' in different ways, and any statement involving the word can almost certainly be rewritten to omit the word entirely. i can't offer a simple 'definition' of what infinity 'is', since i don't necessarily think there is one, or needs to be one *for mathematics*. (note i didn't contradict myself, i pointed out that mathematicians are fine with infinty and what we mean when we use it, but that non-mathematicians by dint of doing weird ill-defined hand wavy things without explaining themselves clearly are not. this thread is a perfect example of that confusion. give me any instance of 'infinity' being used in mathematics and i can explain it. you're not talking about maths here, hence the suggestion you try a different forum.)
the tree Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 For example Pi which comes out of perfect circle doesnt find any respect in Nature. But at the same time near circle scenarios are common.There is nothing wrong with Nature .. it is the Maths which made some partially correct assumptions due to its subjective Nature.The assumptions are not "partially correct", it doesn't matter in the slightest if perfect circles exist in nature or not.
matt grime Posted February 12, 2006 Posted February 12, 2006 Absolutely, the tree. The only subjectivity involved is to do with people choosing the best model (for whatever criteria they see fit) and deciding on what level of approximation they want to use when writing out any numerical output that may be produced. The maths and the conclusions drawn purely about the mathematics are not subjective; there is nothing to interpret in and of itself. One subjective thing to do with this is how much anything of this nature has to do with mathematics at all.
dkv Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 what on earth is an interative process? if you don't define your terms properly they cannot be 'disproven' or 'proven'. they just make no sense. REP:I meant iterative process. ========================================================== i will not even attempt to disprove that since I do not think 'infinity is an interative process', nor do i think its negation is true since i have no idea what that even means. REP:So sorry for the misunderstanding..keyboard mitake.. ========================================================== point out one person that has said infinity is an interative process. or a process fullstop. REP:The term was taken too seriously. ========================================================== i can tell you how infinity is used in maths (many ways) and i will keep repeating that it is merely a short hand to indicate 'not finite' in different ways, and any statement involving the word can almost certainly be rewritten to omit the word entirely. i can't offer a simple 'definition' of what infinity 'is', since i don't necessarily think there is one, or needs to be one *for mathematics*. REP: Good Thought.Maths has no infinity. In fact thats what I am also saying.But I would like this to be taught in Maths. That there is no Maths with Infinity.Lets call the Real Number Set Finite. So if we ask how many Numbers are there in the Real Set ? We say there are Finitely Realizable Number points. Hope you realize the consequences of it. The Flat Pitch of Number Theory Becomes Curved. ==========================================================
matt grime Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 I didn't even notice 'interative' v 'iterative'. Find me one person who has said infinity is the result of an iterative process. "The Flat Pitch of Number Theory Becomes Curved." what does that mean? "So if we ask how many Numbers are there in the Real Set ? We say there are Finitely Realizable Number points." No, we shall not say this. the set of natural numbers is infinite. Any finite set of numbers has a greatest elemen, what is yours? You're talking nonsense, and confusing 'real life' with maths. sure we're only ever going to use a finite number of numbers, but that doesn't mean you can declare the set of all possible numbers to be finite. they aren't a concrete set of things you're going to stub your toe on, they are a concept, an idea, and they are an infinite set. you ain't going to convince anyone otherwise, not least if you keep asserting that 'infinity is the result of an iterative process' which no one else appears to have done, and no one understands. when i said i can't offer a simple definition of infinity and that i suspect there might not be such a thing i was strictly refering to the real world around us. there are certainly infinite sets in maths, infinite cardinals, sums from one to infinity, points at infinity.
dkv Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 No, we shall not say this. the set of natural numbers is infinite. Any finite set of numbers has a greatest elemen, what is yours? You're talking nonsense, and confusing 'real life' with maths. sure we're only ever going to use a finite number of numbers, but that doesn't mean you can declare the set of all possible numbers to be finite. they aren't a concrete set of things you're going to stub your toe on, they are a concept, an idea, and they are an infinite set. REP: Now the problem is clear .. you have declared Maths as having properties True to itself to such an extent that any thing within it may or may not relate to the real world.. thats an age old concept. Remember I had asked you a question : How many observers will it take to create the Maths...? The answer is minimum 2.Anything less and your Maths will have a good chance of never getting realized. Put up your arguments against what I have said .. we will discuss it out in case of any doubts. Secondly having an Idea of Infinite is fine with you.. and I am saying that Infinite as an Idea is irrelevant for the existence of Universe and therefore Maths should also express the same. If it is not the case then we know Maths is terribly wrong somewhere. I can give you hints but before that I would like to hear some honest confessions on the incompleteness of its framework.What all current Maths can not perform? and why? The complexity of Maths makes it appear as if every now and then Nature is nothing but just a Manifestation of Maths.. Thats stupid. Let me tell even the Mathematical Random Numbers are not perfect answer to the Nature's way of choosing things. Visit http://www.scienceagogo.com and read Anomaly in Randomness. ======================================================================================== you ain't going to convince anyone otherwise, not least if you keep asserting that 'infinity is the result of an iterative process' which no one else appears to have done, and no one understands. REP:I guess it was you who wanted to use it as a verb.. not me. I was never in favour of it .. in any way. =========================================================================================== when i said i can't offer a simple definition of infinity and that i suspect there might not be such a thing i was strictly refering to the real world around us. there are certainly infinite sets in maths, infinite cardinals, sums from one to infinity, points at infinity. REP:Yes I have good sympathy for those who wish to use Infinity to solve there computational problems. Simply because something is not true doesnt mean it looses its applicability.It helps to keep the Maths simple whereever required.I dont deny its use. But saying that Mathematically Infinity has any meaning is incorrect. Thus the use of Infinity is at best an approximation used to model a more generalized Framework of logic and reasoning. Hope it is clear. Talk to modern Mathematicians and they will give you reasons why common sense appears to have an upper edge over resource crazy Mathematical Answers. And yes there was a question : why to change Maths? Well the reasons are simple... any further applicability requires good amount of rework in some areas.Including understanding of Group Theory and Number Theory.
matt grime Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Eh? Point out where I said that infinity is best used as a verb? I corrected you once on that. I said not to use it at all, as is perfectly possible. So you're not going to explain why it is 'the result of an interative process' then? Your premise about what maths 'ought to be' is fine, for you I suppose. The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree, and I see no compelling arguments to accept your ideas. So how about posting in speculations if you're not going to respect what this forum is (mathematics). And what about other considerations? does 1/3 now have a decimal expansion? it can't in your system. limits do not exist, this means there are no numbers like pi, or e, or even the square root of two (all non-rational real numbers are limits of rational ones, that is how they are defined, so you can't have them).
dkv Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Eh? Point out where I said that infinity is best used as a verb? I corrected you once on that. I said not to use it at all, as is perfectly possible. So you're not going to explain why it is 'the result of an interative process' then? REP: The problem was there.The problem was removed by creating derivative rules.Please understand that use of "Limit" framework comes to save it. Anyways , You are not asking me right questions... i MEAN IF I CLAIM TO PROVE SOMETHING THEN THE AUDIENCE SHOULD RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS ON IT. Doubts which comes from logical inconsistency of the my claim. We play logical game in which only the best survives. Now coming back to the Infinity. Lets understand that Real Number Set consists of all Numbers except Infinity.Which means Infinity as a concept is acceptable to MATHS.. and by excluding Infinity Maths is simply playing a TRICK of pure nonsense.How can it exclude anything which it itself doesnt understand.... So sorry but this is a fact which Maths has been trying to avoid. Now coming to Limits. Maths serves some purpose therefore it exists ... When applied to the real world .. all mathematical constructs must and must map to the applied field. Therefore the limit actually exists in Principle for all purposes. How much energy can you take out from Bucket to bring it to some absolute Value? Think about it and then reply. ======================================================= Your premise about what maths 'ought to be' is fine, for you I suppose. The rest of the world doesn't seem to agree, and I see no compelling arguments to accept your ideas. REP: Thats your choice .. I dont care whether you accept it or not. For me Christ remains more important than any thing in this world. ================================================================= So how about posting in speculations if you're not going to respect what this forum is (mathematics). REP: Listen .. I do not post anymore at http://www.scienceagogo.com.... I love them and they love me too. But there is something called as free and fair discussion..They dont believe in it.How can I share my thoughts with them? ====================================================================== And what about other considerations? does 1/3 now have a decimal expansion? it can't in your system. limits do not exist, this means there are no numbers like pi, or e, or even the square root of two (all non-rational real numbers are limits of rational ones, that is how they are defined, so you can't have them). REP: Replied above.... A GROUP can not hold Absolute Values...
matt grime Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 REP: The problem was there.The problem was removed by creating derivative rules.Please understand that use of "Limit" framework comes to save it. that also makes no sense. Anyways , You are not asking me right questions... i MEAN IF I CLAIM TO PROVE SOMETHING THEN THE AUDIENCE SHOULD RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS ON IT. Doubts which comes from logical inconsistency of the my claim. but nothing you have written meets the requirements of being a logical mathematical argument. the only response is: that makes no sense. We play logical game in which only the best survives.Now coming back to the Infinity. Lets understand that Real Number Set consists of all Numbers except Infinity. erm, no that is no-one's definition of the real numbers. the real numbers have been defined for you several times in this thread, if you choose to ignore that, that is your fault. we can thus see that what is at fault is your understanding of maths, not maths itself. not that there was any doubt about that. the rest of your post makes even less sense, but since you aren't even getting the definition of the real numbers correct it is immaterial.
dkv Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 Can anyone give me a reason to believe in Limits outside the domain of Maths? Limit which solves so many real life problem can not run away from if original existence in NATURE itself. A limit in Math is actually and necessarily part of real world.I am not scared to say that nothing in this world exist in its absolutenesss. ==================================================== I have read the defnition of real nos but once again please give me more conistent answer.
dkv Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 A small correction:Nothing Exists in Absolutness when Communicated
the tree Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 Can anyone give me a reason to believe in Limits outside the domain of Maths? NO! They don't exist.Limit which solves so many real life problem can not run away from if original existence in NATURE itself.[math]maths\not{=}real world[/math]A limit in Math is actually and necessarily part of real world.That is beyond incorrect, you've been given all the infomation you need to correct yourself so that is lying.I am not scared to say that nothing in this world exist in its absolutenesss.Well whoopdee-do what has that got to do with anything?I have read the defnition of real nos but once again please give me more conistent answer.Real numbers are all numbers that don't produce an error on your calculator. Happy? (actually, they are all numbers that can be pointed out on a 1-D number line, but I'm sure that's already been said)
dkv Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 You are angry for no reason. First try to answer my question " How many minimum observers will be required to create Maths?
Dave Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 To drag this thread someway back towards the realms of on-topicness, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the limit by thinking that infinity should somehow be included in the set of real numbers. There are already thread upon thread of discussions on the nature of infinity in this forum. Once you have taken a course on elementary analysis, I would be happy to talk to you about how mathematicians use "infinity" to help us do things; in the meantime any such discussion seems to be utterly fruitless. I don't mean to condecend, but this is just the way it is. Matt grime is the authority on mathematics around here, and he has an extensive knowledge of the subject. If I were you, I would take on board the stuff he was saying rather than asking questions such as the one above. Don't be so quick to ignore everyone around here.
matt grime Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 How many minimum observers will be required to create Maths? How many minimum observers will be required to make purple porridge? More nonsense....
matt grime Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 Can anyone give me a reason to believe in Limits outside the domain of Maths? why would we care? we are after all only talking about maths here. Limit which solves so many real life problem can not run away from if original existence in NATURE itself. A limit in Math is actually and necessarily part of real world.I am not scared to say that nothing in this world exist in its absolutenesss. what has this to do with anything at all? I have read the defnition of real nos but once again please give me more conistent answer. consistent with what? your opinion of what they *ought* to be? perhaps you ought to reconsider what mathematics is and/or does.
dkv Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 NO personal insults. I respect the knowledge collected so far. But my questions are simple. HOw many observers will it take to create Maths? Why should the Application of Maths make the Truth oscillate between Maths and Segreggated Reality? THink and give me a genuine answer. It will help the community more than me.
matt grime Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 Please reconsider postingin mathematics if you have no intention of asking a question about the subject that makes any sense.
Recommended Posts