"math is NEVER applicable to the real world" split from is current day math flawed

[Bignose]

For example the Ideal gas law; PV = nRT is practical if you want to know how much gas to safely put into a storage tank but the equation does not take into account that the gas molecules have mass, size, interactions with other gas molecules etc. You can make it more accurate if you include correction factors but the complexity of the calculations increases.

You know what is really neat? Math handles this, too. Because it tells that the ideal gas law is most accurate at high temperatures, low pressures, and monatomic gases. Math as we apply it to make predictions about the real world always comes with domains of validity and accuracy bounds. As mentioned above, if we choose to ignore those and misapply the math, we do indeed get back answers. But it is not a failing of math itself to misapply a formula. It isn't mathematics' fault that I can't use Newton's Laws to figure out how much money to leave in my bank account to pay this month's rent. Nor can I use the time value of money equations to know if my bridge is going to stand or not. You still have to use the right tool for the right job. And it can be demonstrated -- quite simply by the fact that you are using some kind of computer to read this and post your own comments -- that mathematics have been supremely successful when used correctly. I really think that cladking has no idea what life would really be like if mankind weren't able to apply mathematics to the real world.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Bignose

[swansont]

I think it boils down to "All models are wrong, but some are useful" (George Box). You will never have a model that perfectly describes nature, but so what? You have models that do the job — useful ones. The math describes nature well enough to do things with it. But "not perfect" is a far cry from "NEVER applies".

 

Really, this has turned into a morbid exercise in observing the lengths someone will go to to avoid saying they were flat-out wrong.

[CharonY]

What is sad is that the same energy could have been spent to learn something. Instead it is used to deny knowledge.

[cladking]

Math as we apply it to make predictions about the real world always comes with domains of validity and accuracy bounds.

 

Yes! Exactly. This is why math seems to work when it is applied to the real world; it reflects current understanding which is usually good enough for government work. We don't apply adjustments for relativity in the weight of a train as its velocity increases and one hundred years ago we didn't know better. We don't calculate things to twenty decimal places because they are irrelevant and outside our ability to measure. We rarely need to know the value of pi beyond the 5th or 6th decimal point. So long as equations are correctly applied we can usually make sufficiently accurate predictions. But there's still the fact that we can't predict the next earthquake or even explain much of what happens in nature. If two cars collide experts will differ in their opinions of direction and speed. Not only is the forecast for the next day wrong but the reporting of current conditions are wrong. Right now it's been overcast all day and it was 29 degrees on its way up to a high of 27 degrees but in reality the sun shone earlier and it's snowing now. It's commonly wrong and the temperature is often wrong as well or unavailable.

 

But we don't normally see such problems or that we see the world in terms of what we know.

 

As mentioned above, if we choose to ignore those and misapply the math, we do indeed get back answers.

 

 

Equations always return answers so long as you have enough of the variables.

 

But it is not a failing of math itself to misapply a formula. It isn't mathematics' fault that I can't use Newton's Laws to figure out how much money to leave in my bank account to pay this month's rent. Nor can I use the time value of money equations to know if my bridge is going to stand or not. You still have to use the right tool for the right job.

 

 

It's not the math that is the problem. It's not even the fact that math can't be applied that is the problem.

 

The problem is that people see that math "works" so they don't see that nature is not beholden to math. Nature may or may not follow the same logic as math but we don't know. We know that math works so we see the world in terms of math even where the world doesn't obviously behave in terms of math (almost all the time, really).

 

There's no problem with math. There's no problem with using math to unlock the secrets of nature. The problem is in understanding reality through what's known. The problem is that it limits one's ability to observe.

 

I really think that cladking has no idea what life would really be like if mankind weren't able to apply mathematics to the real world.

 

 

You might be surprised.

 

At the risk of going off topic and of making a statement I can't and won't defend at this time anyway, I believe there's another kind of math that is derived from an understanding of nature rather than being the basis of an understanding of nature. At this point I'm merely trying to establish that so far as we know nature is not reflective of math. Our metaphysical understanding and how we think says that nature is reflective of math but the reality does not bear this out. We merely use math to learn natural law and as a basis for technology.

I may be wrong about your thinking here but I think you may just be referring to the fact that for math to apply to real world problems you may have to make some simplifying assumptions to keep the math from getting too complicated to be practical. For example the Ideal gas law; PV = nRT is practical if you want to know how much gas to safely put into a storage tank but the equation does not take into account that the gas molecules have mass, size, interactions with other gas molecules etc. You can make it more accurate if you include correction factors but the complexity of the calculations increases.

 

 

This is certainly a part of what I mean.

 

Even when we use math to invent technology it is a process suimilar to the lab where we omit extraneous variables. In machines this is simply done by design. If you want a train to follow a track then the track leads in only one direction. We can't measure everything that affects results in the real world. We can't count the individual rabbits in a square mile and even if we could we won't know when the number changes or one individual is exchanged for another. Even if a process is simple and we know the equations to apply we don't know that we have all the equations that are necessary. The fact is that long periods and small scales are almost impossible to make predictions in the real world. It's easy to predict how much water will be in a reservoir next week but it's usually difficult one year out and impossible 100 or 1,000,000 years out.

[Strange]

It's not the math that is the problem. It's not even the fact that math can't be applied that is the problem.

 

No. The problem is purely your ludicrous claims.

 

At the risk of going off topic and of making a statement I can't and won't defend at this time anyway

 

If even you are not going to stand by the things you say, why say them? And why should anyone else give them any consideration if you can't be bothered to take them seriously?

 

I believe ...

 

You have very clearly demonstrated (in this thread and several others) that there is no reason for anyone to take your beliefs seriously.

[cladking]

 

 

If even you are not going to stand by the things you say, why say them? And why should anyone else give them any consideration if you can't be bothered to take them seriously?

 

 

 

 

You haven't taken one thing in any of my posts seriously but you're going to latch on to the one thing I won't defend.

 

How we see the world is determined by how we think and in our case the math we use. Reality looks like a clockwork to those who use math but seeing reality as the cause of math rather than the effect doesn't prevent the application of math by the observer. It merely changes his perspective.

[Strange]

You haven't taken one thing in any of my posts seriously but you're going to latch on to the one thing I won't defend.

 

None of your statements in this thread have been defensible. They are entirely meaningless.

(The same is true of many, if not all, of your other threads.)

[cladking]

 

None of your statements in this thread have been defensible. They are entirely meaningless.

(The same is true of many, if not all, of your other threads.)

 

 

Perhaps if you actually challenged one of these statements rather than posting vacuous, patronizing, and insulting cliches and irrelevancies we might find some basis for disagreement or one of us could learn something.

 

Maybe retreat and study. Come back when you know what you are talking about.

 

 

It's very easy to just dismiss something without ever really addressing it.

 

 

 

This is what people do. The way we think and the way we understand reality is the cause. Logic has been reduced to mathematics and expunged from reality itself except to the degree we understand theory. We apply theory as models and paradigms and believe these explain all of reality.

[Bignose]

At the risk of going off topic and of making a statement I can't and won't defend at this time anyway, I believe there's another kind of math that is derived from an understanding of nature rather than being the basis of an understanding of nature.

You keep claiming this, many times now. You never seem to be able to provide it, however. So, should I even ask you to back this up? Or would that just prompt another reply about ancient peoples, our language hampering our abilities, foolish Egyptologists, and how math isn't applicable?

 

Well, I'm just a sucker, so I guess I'll ask. Please define how math can be "derived from an understanding of nature" rather than "being the basis of an understanding of nature", in particular how these two very similar phrases are actually different.

 

Then please demonstrate that this new math is at least as effect as our old math. Several examples, please. From first principles, please.

[Mad For Science]

But there's still the fact that we can't predict the next earthquake or even explain much of what happens in nature. If two cars collide experts will differ in their opinions of direction and speed. Not only is the forecast for the next day wrong but the reporting of current conditions are wrong. Right now it's been overcast all day and it was 29 degrees on its way up to a high of 27 degrees but in reality the sun shone earlier and it's snowing now. It's commonly wrong and the temperature is often wrong as well or unavailable.

People often complain about the accuracy of weather predictions but often fail to understand just how difficult it is to predict such a dynamic process. Too many things like butterflies flapping their wings can affect the outcome. That doesn't mean we can just discount the applicability of math to make weather predictions, it just means that more information and further study is required.

 

We can't count the individual rabbits in a square mile and even if we could we won't know when the number changes or one individual is exchanged for another. Even if a process is simple and we know the equations to apply we don't know that we have all the equations that are necessary.

Math doesn't have to be perfect to be applicable. If we know that 10 000 rabbits is too many and 1000 rabbits is not enough for a given area then we can decide, based on the math we used to estimate them, we can decide whether they need to cull them or introduce a breeding program, we do not need to keep track of every individual rabbit.

The fact is that long periods and small scales are almost impossible to make predictions in the real world. It's easy to predict how much water will be in a reservoir next week but it's usually difficult one year out and impossible 100 or 1,000,000 years out.

If you try apply unrealistic constraints of course the math is not going to be accurate. I can think of no reason why someone would want to predict how much water will be in a reservoir 1000000 years into the future.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Mad For Science

[swansont]

Yes! Exactly. This is why math seems to work when it is applied to the real world; it reflects current understanding which is usually good enough for government work. We don't apply adjustments for relativity in the weight of a train as its velocity increases and one hundred years ago we didn't know better. We don't calculate things to twenty decimal places because they are irrelevant and outside our ability to measure. We rarely need to know the value of pi beyond the 5th or 6th decimal point. So long as equations are correctly applied we can usually make sufficiently accurate predictions.

 

 

You're sooo close with this. You repeatedly admit that math can be used to predict things, which is a tacit admission that your original assertion is very wrong, but can't quite come to explicitly admit it.

 

Instead, you continue to dig the hole deeper

 

But there's still the fact that we can't predict the next earthquake or even explain much of what happens in nature. If two cars collide experts will differ in their opinions of direction and speed. Not only is the forecast for the next day wrong but the reporting of current conditions are wrong. Right now it's been overcast all day and it was 29 degrees on its way up to a high of 27 degrees but in reality the sun shone earlier and it's snowing now. It's commonly wrong and the temperature is often wrong as well or unavailable.

 

"This model is poor" (or limited) does not mean they all are. For math to NEVER apply to the real world requires that no models work, ever. They must have no usefulness at all.

[DrP]

V=IR

S = U + 1/2 at^2

D=M/V... etc..... These equations are applicable to the real world.

 

 

There is SO much math that defines our world.... where it occasionally fails it is in fine detail where we haven't included additional terms due to other influences or perturbations. Even then we either know and choose not to add these extras terms due to the values being negligible, or we haven't defined them yet.

[cladking]

V=IR

S = U + 1/2 at^2

D=M/V... etc..... These equations are applicable to the real world.

 

 

There is SO much math that defines our world.... where it occasionally fails it is in fine detail where we haven't included additional terms due to other influences or perturbations. Even then we either know and choose not to add these extras terms due to the values being negligible, or we haven't defined them yet.

 

The world existed before displacement equaled the original velocity multiplied by time plus one half the acceleration multiplied by the square of time. The math statement isn't true because it was invented but because reality existed and the logic of reality supports the math and physics. Before the invention of trains this equation didn't really apply to things because this is a vector equation and birds don't exist in vectors. At least they can't fly in straight lines as their center of gravity oscillates up and down and they continually recalculate direction and are affected by wind, moisture, and myriad other factors which can't simply be plugged into any equation. Yes, we have endless more knowledge than 100 years ago or two hundred years ago and can continually improve our modeling of a bird's flight. We can make good predictions about when a flock of geese will arrive in NC or the swallows return to Capistrano. We believe all this fine tuning is leading to fundamental answers to all our questions and we see reality based on our understanding of the math and physics that make it possible.

 

The problem is we are not seeing where the bird is going or why. We aren't seeing the reality of nature through the bird's eyes but through our own. Of course great strides are being made in biology, zoology, and ornithology as well so we have ever more information but it is mostly being seen in fragments by specialists and is mostly seen through our models and paradigms. We are little or no closer to truly understanding what it is to be a bird than we were 1000 years ago. We can't see the individual birds through the flock.

 

I keep saying this but people are missing my point. I'm not advocating we abandon science. Far from it. I am suggesting that everybody should see that specialization leads to a perspective that is based on extrapolations. Some people, some individuals should be trained from a young age as generalists. All children should get more instruction and more reminders about metaphysics and a 7th step to the scientific method should be added; metaphysical implications. Additionally we (some individuals) should toy around with inventing new sciences with different metaphysics. These sciences can be run in parallel so they might be able to get one another over humps. I have a great science that might be usable by computers!

 

One man working alone even within the confines of human progress and existing models can accomplish very very little. Human progress is made possible SOLELY by our ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants" and this is possible SOLELY because we have complex language. I'm trying to work outside of what is recognized and known and quite frankly it's so far outside that fixing science so that we can get over the unified field theory hump is tertiary to far more important and pressing concerns at the current time. My primary concern at this time is that the ancient science isn't lost yet again.

 

I'll try to get to some of the other points soon. It will be difficult to address Bignose's points because ancient math eludes me still.

[Bignose]

It will be difficult to address Bignose's points because ancient math eludes me still.

*sigh*. Then how can you be so sure that we're not doing it right, or that the "ancient" ways are better? This is what ruffles so many feathers here.

 

You write things like "math is not applicable to the real world". You tell us there is a new improved math derived from nature. And so on.

 

Here's the really great thing about science: just demonstrate that these things are true. Just demonstrate some ancient math. Just demonstrate math derived from nature. If it just as good as what we have now, it will be accepted. Because science doesn't really care where is comes from, just that it works.

 

But, we get to the end, and it turns out that you don't even know it yourself. It is this overconfidence of telling us that we're all wrong, but not actually being able to show us something that is more right that is really quite grating.

 

All you want to do is tear down our house because you don't like it, but you don't know how to rebuild something you do like. Well, I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a house with flaws in it than no house at all! Once you can demonstrate you know how to rebuild the house, then come back and we can talk again, but don't come into my yard with a bulldozer ready to destroy without being ready to rebuild, too.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Bignose

[Mad For Science]

The world existed before displacement equaled the original velocity multiplied by time plus one half the acceleration multiplied by the square of time.

The Universe was already about 9 billion years old before the world formed I am pretty sure this equation would have applied to something in that time even if no one knew about it. Just like a book existed before you read it for the first time.

The math statement isn't true because it was invented but because reality existed and the logic of reality supports the math and physics.

The math statement was not invented, it was discovered.

The problem is we are not seeing where the bird is going or why.

We do know where the bird is going - straight ahead. Why he is going in any particular direction is irrelevant to the physics of the bird's flight.

 

All children should get more instruction and more reminders about metaphysics and a 7th step to the scientific method should be added; metaphysical implications.

 

The metaphysics implications are irrelevant.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Mad For Science

[cladking]

*sigh*. Then how can you be so sure that we're not doing it right, or that the "ancient" ways are better? This is what ruffles so many feathers here.

 

 

We are doing it right. Modern knowledge is too extensive for ancient ways to work at all.

 

The problem with the modern perspective is that it takes a position from which we can see only what's already known. If we know almost nothing then it follows that this perspective is highly unrealistic.

You write things like "math is not applicable to the real world". You tell us there is a new improved math derived from nature. And so on.

 

 

Math is quantified natural logic. Apparently reality behaves according to this natural logic. Apparently because the universe behaves according to natural logic math works.

Here's the really great thing about science: just demonstrate that these things are true.

 

 

I think it would be far more true to say that experiments isolate aspects of nature for study and we know how these aspects behave under these conditions. We also know that we can observe these same "laws" (theories) under different conditions (different isolations) within the lab as well as they apparently exist in nature and outside the lab. When things outside the lab don't behave according to expectations we tend to assume there were unknown variables or unknown forces at play. We also will tend to amend our expectations to fit the observation.

 

Just demonstrate some ancient math. Just demonstrate math derived from nature. If it just as good as what we have now, it will be accepted. Because science doesn't really care where is comes from, just that it works.

 

 

At this point in time no one understands the ancient math. This is very ironic!

 

I don't know how it worked either but am quite certain ho human being could use it to compute the trajectories required for a moon landing. Perhaps even a computer couldn't handle it. I believe it threw away 1.5625% of every equation but each operation still approched the correct answer because operations were non-linear. I believe the math was ordinal. There are some exceedingly sharp people working on this and progress is being made, I believe.

 

I believe the ancient math worked superbly for the needs of the science that existed at the time. It could not be used today except as a parlour trick unless, perhaps, it could be deciphered and then used by computers. There might be no advantage to using such math in conjunction with modern science.

But, we get to the end, and it turns out that you don't even know it yourself. It is this overconfidence of telling us that we're all wrong, but not actually being able to show us something that is more right that is really quite grating.

 

 

Modern science isn't wrong. It provides a perspective that encompasses far more than its metaphysics. Science only really works in the lab and in the manifestation of the lab we can take ourtsiude and call "technology". We mistake this technology as evidence of things that don't exist and we can't see how the technology arises.

All you want to do is tear down our house because you don't like it, but you don't know how to rebuild something you do like. Well, I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a house with flaws in it than no house at all! Once you can demonstrate you know how to rebuild the house, then come back and we can talk again, but don't come into my yard with a bulldozer ready to destroy without being ready to rebuild, too.

 

 

Science isn't the problem.

 

There are many ways to state the problem and I've tried most of them. Essentially the problem is that everyone is a specialist and applied science is far behind the times. The world is highly inefficient and highly wasteful because human knowledge (science) is being applied haphazardly to industry, finance, and government. The problem is we've been studying the trees to the exclusion of everything else so long that we now know everything about the trees and nothing at all about the forest.

 

 

I'm not even claiming here that ancient science is the solution to our problem with specialization. I just don't know. I'm saying that we need to train generalists or applied scientists by any name at all. We need a broader perspective to understand where we are, where we're going, and the best route through the vagaries of reality.

The math statement was not invented, it was discovered.

 

From the perspective of anyone who believes the equation describes a bird's flight or the flight of birds; yes, it was discovered.

 

From the perspective that no equation can possibly be applied to fully describe the flight of a bird with current knowledge, it was invented. No matter how many equations you apply to a migratory goose you can not completely describe nor understand its flight nor behavior. We can't predict what an individual will do nor understand why it did it. Even if you adjust the equations for tidal effects and relativity all you can do is try to better understand "what".

 

The equation follows the same natural logic as reality but the real world is far too complex to model in such a way. This doesn't mean the equation is worthless but it also doesn't mean it was "discovered".

 

Like everything everyone sees all the time it is merely a matter of perspective. Science factors out the observer but we are each observers anyway.

[swansont]

We are doing it right. Modern knowledge is too extensive for ancient ways to work at all.

 

The problem with the modern perspective is that it takes a position from which we can see only what's already known. If we know almost nothing then it follows that this perspective is highly unrealistic.

 

Um, what?

 

It sounds like you are claiming we can't discover anything new. Normally, I would discount this because it's so obviously false, but given the premise of this thread I can't assume that it's exactly what you are claiming.

[Mad For Science]

From the perspective that no equation can possibly be applied to fully describe the flight of a bird with current knowledge, it was invented. No matter how many equations you apply to a migratory goose you can not completely describe nor understand its flight nor behavior.

It is not necessary to account for every motion of every molecule of the bird for the mathematics of avian flight to be applicable in the real world. If it was math (and all of science) would be useless and it clearly is not. Every measurement has an element of error and random errors can never be eliminated, it can only be minimized, that is not a failing of math or science, that is life.Math and physics is not concerned with why the bird does anything, that is a matter for animal behaviorists. This analogy has now been stretched to an absurd degree.

Science factors out the observer but we are each observers anyway.

If you have studied relativity and quantum mechanics you would know that is not true. There is a little thing known as the observer effect (not the Star Trek episode).

Edited February 27, 2015 by Mad For Science

[cladking]

 

 

 

It sounds like you are claiming we can't discover anything new. Normally, I would discount this because it's so obviously false, but given the premise of this thread I can't assume that it's exactly what you are claiming.

 

No. This isn't what I mean.

 

"We are doing it right. Modern knowledge is too extensive for ancient ways to work at all."

 

You can't put a four hour baseball game in a two hour time slot or 20 lbs of potatoes in an eight pound bag. You can't express the English language with a seven letter alphabet. The metaphysics of ancient science can't accomodate all of modern knowledge such that any human could understand it.

 

"The problem with the modern perspective is that it takes a position from which we can see only what's already known. If we know almost nothing then it follows that this perspective is highly unrealistic."

 

But the ancient perspective worked very well for understanding and utilizing the little of nature that was known. Generalism is a good perspective for things like experiment design, hypothesis formation, and applied science. The perspectives of generalism and ancient science are very similar.

[Strange]

 

No. This isn't what I mean.

 

"We are doing it right. Modern knowledge is too extensive for ancient ways to work at all."

 

You can't put a four hour baseball game in a two hour time slot or 20 lbs of potatoes in an eight pound bag. You can't express the English language with a seven letter alphabet. The metaphysics of ancient science can't accomodate all of modern knowledge such that any human could understand it.

 

So we have, through the application of science and technology, outgrown the primitive "metaphysical" natural-philosophy of the past. That is a good thing, surely.

[cladking]

 

So we have, through the application of science and technology, outgrown the primitive "metaphysical" natural-philosophy of the past. That is a good thing, surely.

 

From the perspective of today, yes; it is an exceedingly good thing. Billions more people have lived proiductive, fruitful, and happy lives because we are able to mimic reality with math (ie- try to apply math to nature). There are drawbacks as well. The first 3500 years after the collapse of the metaphysical language and (probable) natural math were touch and go and many people burned at the stake or who otherwise suffered through the loss of science would disagree with us. We gave up a great deal besides just science and math. We lost our history and the knowledge gleeened over 40,000 years. We lost the ability to form consensus even with enemies. We initially gained nothing at all except for the ability of the average man to stand on the same footing as the greats in disputes and in opportunities. At that time no one had even considered the idea of modern science. "Experiment" was anathema to ancient scientists because they believed it would distort results. The idea of basing science on experiment wouldn't even occur to natural scientists. It would be as far fetched to them as our believing a federal banking committe could just brainstorm a unified field theory.

 

Ancient science does have some advantages over modern science. It can't be used any longer by humans because the metaphysics would become too complex to contain modern science. But the process of ancient science provides a different perspective that might be highly beneficial to some scientists. The perspective could be of immense value especially in industry and government. It's possible that computers could handle the complexity of the metaphysics and it could even become the basis of machine intelligence!

 

The weaknesses and failures of modern systems are not inherent in infrastructure, human nature, or randomness but because of processes that can be streamlined or redressed. It will require effort and a different perspective to identify the weaknesses. Once a person can see that math is derived from reality rather than reality derived from math then it's a huge step to seeing ancient science and metaphysics. It's a huge step to seeing reality in a new light where we don't really know much of anything at all.

[Bignose]

Ancient science does have some advantages over modern science.

Again, you keep saying this (and much more after it). Citation needed. Please demonstrate some of it. Heck, any of it. I'm not just taking your word for it (something that has come directly from modern science, thank you very much). It all sounds good in words, but if you can't actually show any of it actually, you know, doing what you say here, then it's all just a big story. Just show me some of it actually doing something.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Bignose

[Strange]

The first 3500 years after the collapse of the metaphysical language and (probable) natural math

 

As this is a science forum, please provide some concrete evidence for this "metaphysical language" (and, perhaps, "natural math"). And by evidence, I don't mean your personal (mis)understandings of existing texts. I mean something that would at least be considered for publication in a suitable journal (e.g. in the field of historical linguistics).

 

 

But the process of ancient science provides a different perspective that might be highly beneficial to some scientists.

 

Please explain exactly what this process is, so we see how it could be beneficial.

 

 

It's possible that computers could handle the complexity of the metaphysics and it could even become the basis of machine intelligence!

 

(Note: this confirms that you should be able to define these "metaphysical processes" quite precisely - otherwise how could computers be programmed to use them.) Perhaps you could explain how this could be implemented on a computer and how it would aid in the development of AI?

 

 

Once a person can see that math is derived from reality rather than reality derived from math

 

Do you have any evidence that either of those positions are true?

 

Or even that they are held by anyone? There is an ongoing debate as to whether math is invented or discovered, but it isn't clear if that is the same thing. What do you think?

[nobox]

Refer to my thread: Are natural numbers sacred?

This topic resurfaces every 3 days here. Again, any proof or disproof is impossible. It is all about meta meta meta physics.

My view is that math is a human specific invention, but it has some limited utility. It is more like a game or toy than anything else.

I claim that I have found the profound truth about math, numbers and the universe!@

I found many people are almost like engineers, without a mind set to properly think out of box. Maybe they are.

[Bignose]

This topic resurfaces every 3 days here.

Citation needed. Especially since it has been over 4 days between your reply and the previous replay in this thread. :/

 

 

Again, any proof or disproof is impossible.

...

I claim that I have found the profound truth about math, numbers and the universe!@

So, you claim something. But it can't be proved. Guess what. That isn't science. You need to be able to back up claims, otherwise, they are summarily dismissed. This is what lead to your last thread being closed. Remember?